Two legal thoughts

Well, thoughts on legal issues, anyway.

First, the Hobby Lobby decision came in from the SCOTUS. They won, the left-o-sphere melted down because the corporation could choose to not be involved in your sex life. To be more specific, they cannot be compelled to pay for contraception for the company employees. Somehow, the left equates “not required to pay for something they find repugnant” with “denying them basic medical care.” But their logic is that, because you have a right to healthcare, the company can’t deny them any specific birth control methods. Yeah, I know, it’s warped, but that’s sort of the left-wing thinking. Well, couldn’t we apply that to gun rights? I mean, if we have a right to own a firearm, must not a corporation recognize your right to carry them, so all those “gun free zones” are a clear violation, right? It’s amazing how selective some people are. This is just the abbreviated form of the argument, but I’m sure y’all are smart enough to figure out the details.

Secondly, It seems that some SWAT teams in Massachusetts are claiming to be exempt from normal FOIA and open records law requirements, because they have incorporated as 501(c)(3) corporations. Clever. But it seems that *IF* that were the case, they would *ALSO* not be immune from lawsuits via sovereign immunity. They should have the advantages of one or the other, but not both. If this thing doesn’t get shot (ahem) down right promptly, then I think we will see a HUGE wave of incorporation in government “industries.” If it’s upheld, then we can safely assume that another leg of the stool the constitution is standing on just got sawed off to a very short stump. Be fun to see them get sued for doing something stupid, make their argument in court, and be told that they gave away immunity for thirty pieces of paperwork (to mix my metaphors), so suck it up and face the jury.


10 thoughts on “Two legal thoughts

  1. You haven’t taken it near far enough. By the Progressive definition of a right as being something your employer must be forced by law to pay for, your second amendment rights mean your employer must be forced by law to pay for your guns, ammunition, targets, eye protection, hearing protection, carrying cases, safes, holsters, cleaning accessories, reloading equipment, carry permit and range fees. Any hesitation on the part of your employer to buy all these things for you is conclusive proof that your employer hates you and is trying to oppress you by violating your second amendment rights.

    Lock arms and sing it now, altogether; “We shall overcome…”

    As Thomas Sowell put it so well; “In the long run, the greatest weapon of mass destruction is stupidity.”

  2. I would be curious to know how many of these non-government employees are carrying firearms in violation of the NFA and/or local firearms laws.

  3. Also I didn’t realize 501(c)(3) corporations are exempt from Massachusetts gun laws and have full police powers.

    • Oohhh… That would be sweet.
      “We’d like to examine your records about-”
      We don’t have to comply with that. We’re private.”
      “OK, then, we will felony arrest you for violating a long list of Mass gun law, each hollow-point in that MP5’s 30-round magazine is a separate count…”

    • Also, don’t forget that “private” corporations, such as 501(c)(3), aren’t eligible for the federal government’s “grants” of surplus military hardware – MRAPs, full-auto rifles and SMGs, body armor, flash-bang grenades, NVOs, etc.

      Private corporations must do as any private citizen must do: fill out all required paperwork, pass all appropriate background checks, and pay full list price including tax stamps for those items.

      How many bake sales do you think it’d take to afford a $260,000 MRAP, hmmm?

      • Nor are private non-profit corporations eligible for legal possession of post-68 imported NFA “firearms” (in addition to HK’s products, including tear gas launchers if they have any “antipersonnel” rounds including rubber balls, I understand that European distraction devices – which are “Destructive Devices under the GCA/NFA – are very popular with US SWAT teams) or post-86 machineguns.

        Being non-profit corporations, I do not even think they would qualify under ATF’s current (since Clinton) definition of “being in business” to qualify for SOT/FFL as a corporation. No profit = not in business to ATF.

        So, the judge should immediately issue bench warrants for these incorporated private citizens. They are obviously terrorist gun smugglers, since who else would have that many unregistered (if it’s not registered to the entity in possession, legally it is “unregistered” as far as that entity is concerned — cops can’t even possess police-registered NFA firearms off-duty; they are ONLY covered when they are on-duty) NFA firearms, including machineguns, short barrelled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices, silencers, etc?

    • I still can’t wrap my brains around that one. I know it may be too much to ask for sanity to prevail, but this is something that needs to be addressed, sharply.

  4. So, NGO’s with guns are running around in Massachusetts?
    How is this different then, from the mysterious soldiers in Ukraine with no identifying markings?
    And I agree, the question of police power and arrest authority and sovereign immunity as well as the question of firearm laws.

  5. Curious that ubu doesn’t have an opinion on these “charities” running around with truly military firepower…

Comments are closed.