Are you tired of winning yet?

Another win for the Second Amendment:

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today applauded the unanimous repeal of Tacoma Washington’s ban on the sale, use, and possession of electronic arms.

Attorneys for FPC sent a letter to the Tacoma City Council on April 10, which warned that the group was ready and willing to sue based on solid case law if the city refused to repeal the ban.

Said FPC attorney Stephen Stambouleih, “As the Supreme Court noted in Caetano v. Massachusetts it “has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’”

There is a LOT more to do but having easy wins is a moral booster for us, demoralizes the freedom haters, and builds momentum.


7 thoughts on “Are you tired of winning yet?

  1. No. Anything that causes distress to the anti-liberty Leftist freedom-haters is a good thing and should occur as often as possible, as intensely as possible, and as long as possible.

  2. Any decision that recognizes a jurisdictional boundary, as in “this is simply outside your authority so shut up and sit down” is probably a very good one.

    When are all of WA State’s knife laws going to be struck down en masse accordingly then? Or did I miss that?

    Also; any NFA weapon is among “instruments that constitute bearable arms”, so that language would render the NFA null and void. I can “bear” towed artillery behind my pickup too, in case anyone wanted to bring that up. We may also assert the “keepable” nature of such.

    • Ah, but the NFA is a tax, and as Justice Roberts showed us, anything is permissible if it is actually a tax.

      Now, the prohibition on paying the tax on machine guns made after 1986 would constitute a ban on the keeping of a class of bearable arm.

      Wasn’t there a federal appeals court verdict somewhere in flyover country (I wanna say Wyoming?) where the judge said something to the effect of “If you will not collect the tax, federal government, then the item is ipso facto UN-TAXED” and found a defendant not guilty? It was one of those ‘we better not appeal this any higher because this alternate interpretation of the Hughes Amendment could blow away everything’ scenarios. Had to have happened before the internet so news of it could be contained by fellow-travellers in the media. Anyone know what I’m talking about? Google isn’t helping.

      • Fair enough, though Madison pretended in one of the Federalist Papers that the power of taxation mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 is not, in fact, unlimited but applies only to the specific purposes listed afterwards. His reasoning is linguistic and grammatical and lexical nonsense, and I wonder if he actually believed it. The Federalist Papers are actually op-ed pieces intended to market a specific political position, so this may well be an early version of “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”.

      • It would be hard to find, although generally federal district court-level opinions have been published for awhile.

        Maybe the concept was, if you won’t collect the tax he can’t be convicted of not paying the tax.

        Lexis-Nexis might have it.

  3. For those of you living in real America which don’t realize:

    Massachusetts doesn’t even recognize Caetano v. Massachusetts yet! Stun guns are still banned because the state Supreme Judicial Court, Attorney General (Miss ban Glocks, mail order ammo, and ARs by press conference decree), and legislature refuse to acknowledge the USSC. The constitution doesn’t apply in the Commonwealth where prohibited by the state.

Comments are closed.