If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy.
Chris Murphy
U.S. Senator (D-Connecticut)
May 14, 2023
Possibility of ‘popular revolt’ about gun control, Sen. Chris Murphy says
Perhaps it would not be quite a popular as the Senator claims to believe:
Yes. We can have both.
We can have sensible gun laws & a law enforcement that’s not corrupted with racist cops.
It takes COMPROMISE & legitimate debate … not one side screaming & crying because the good ol boy racist days are ending & their tiny little penises can’t take it.
Mike_32 @JojoPapa32
Tweeted on January 20, 2023
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
Via Reticulating_Splines @ReticulatingSp1.
We only need one sensible gun law, and we already have it. It is known as the 2nd Amendment.
If you have a fire extinguisher in your home get rid of it. You’re nothing but a firefighter larper. Go join the local fire brigade if you want to fight fires!
Lucas Botkin (@LucasBotkin)
Tweeted on May 12, 2023
In case you didn’t already guess, this is sarcasm in response to anti-gun assertions individuals should not own firearms.
The Second Amendment accords protection of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” by providing that the right “shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. Amend. II (emphasis added). The Second Amendment is unique in its use of “infringed” for the word does not appear anywhere else in the Constitution. Despite its uniqueness, the term “infringed” has received little attention by scholars or courts. However, Heller took the view that “infringed” “implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right.” 554 U.S. at 592 . As articulated in Heller, the Second Amendment does not serve to grant a right but rather preserves a right that the people already possessed. Therefore, to “keep and bear” serves to identify the right protected, not to define the right in the first instance.
The definition of “infringe” further supports the conclusion that the pre-existing right includes a right to purchase. “Infringe” is defined in modern dictionaries as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” “Infringe,” Merriam-Webster.com. “Encroach,” in turn, has two definitions: “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another” and “to advance beyond the usual or proper limits.” “Encroach,” Merriam-Webster.com. Those words have possessed the same meaning since the sixteenth century and the Founders would have understood them in the same way. Not simply protecting the heartland of the preserved right, the Second Amendment protects the environs surrounding it to prevent any encroachment on the core protections. Thus, by virtue of the word “infringed,” the Second Amendment ‘s protective textual embrace includes the conduct necessary to exercise the right (“to keep and bear”) and that, as explained above, includes the right to purchase arms so that one can keep and bear them.
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
May 10, 2023
JOHN COREY FRASER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a Class, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al., Defendants.
This is from the summary judgement saying that prohibiting 18 to 20 year old people from purchasing firearms is unconstitutional.
I am not a lawyer but the court finally defining “infringe” in such an inclusive manner seems like a big deal to me. I am all in for inclusive rights.
Machine gun sporting events in high schools by 2032 (a decade after Bruen)!
Going after the guns and the lawful owners is the wrong approach; it emboldens criminals, leading to an increase in violent crime. Repeal the gun laws, empower the lawful citizens, and go after criminals, and the problem goes back to reasonable levels. It will never get to zero no matter how many laws they pass or repeal, but if the goal is to reduce crime, empowering criminals and hamstringing peaceable citizens will NOT do it.
Archer
May 10, 2023
Comment to Lies and Deliberate Deception
But it is clear the goal is not to reduce crime. At least not crime as most people define it.
The far right’s response to the murders of children and law-abiding citizens is somewhere between sociopathy and psychopathy. Republicans in Washington are wearing miniature AR-15s on their lapels. This week, one day after a shooter used an AR-15 to kill five people, including a 9-year-old in Texas, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) posed smiling with a T-shirt showing an AR-15 and a caption that called it a “cordless hole puncher.”
Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s response to school shootings is to put more guns in schools, which is akin to believing the way to end fatal car crashes is to repeal all road rules and put more cars on the road. Instead, Congress’s next steps should be to renew the ban on assault weapons for anyone below age 21 and hold parents accountable for the misuse of firearms by their minor children.
William S. Becker
May 5, 2023
America the terrorized: The death grip of gun rights in the United States
Representative Boebert did not pose smiling with an AR-15 T-Shirt in response to the murder of the five people. But Becker wants you to believe that. This is deliberate deception.
He claims that if people are allowed to defend themselves and other innocent life it is
akin to believing the way to end fatal car crashes is to repeal all road rules and put more cars on the road.
Really? I don’t believe he really thinks that. I believe he is deliberately telling a huge lie in attempt to further his evil goals.
Those aren’t the only blatant lies and deliberate deceptions. Here is another from the same opinion piece:
A Gallup poll in February showed 63 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with current gun laws, the highest in 23 years of tracking. Most Americans have favored stricter laws since the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012.
Yeah, I can believe 63 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with current gun laws. I am EXTREMLY dissatisfied with them. Notice how he implies those 63 percent are in favor of stricter laws without saying it. He changes from 63 percent to “most Americans” when it comes to support for stricter laws. If you look at the actual data in 2019 it did hit a peak of 63 percent who support stricter gun laws. It is currently about 57 percent and was just 52 percent last year. And in 2011, it was 43 percent. And, what he hid by cherry picking the data is that in 1990 it was 78 percent that wanted stricter gun laws. In the big picture this guy is losing and he knows it.
These are deliberate lies and active deception. These are some of your best indicators of evil intent. Prepare and respond appropriately.
We are from California.
You could not do anything like this there. This is amazing.
Cindy
May 7, 2023
I was walking from my car toward the Boomershoot shooting line when a couple drove up and asked me how much it cost to enter. I explained the pricing and the woman said that was too pricey for them. I said it was too late to enter anyway. She said they just wanted to watch. “Oh!, you don’t need to pay to watch. Stay behind the line and don’t get in people’s way and you can watch all you want.”
She then asked how this got started and the conversation went on for quite a while. I finally started asked them questions. I asked where they live. She described the location and said they just moved there. I asked where they moved from, and that elicited todays quote of the day.
What they were seeing was something like this, only with clear blue skies:
There is a reason you can’t do something like this in California. It scares the crap out of the tyrants in control of the state.
Well you still need a gun to make up for that small dick energy you’re throwing out pussy
ben royals @benroyals
Tweeted on January 24, 2023
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
Another Monday. Another anti-gunner demonstrates the best case he can make for his side is a middle school insult.
Frustratingly, the same judge who issued the foolish opinion which was overturned by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago has once again stepped in to enforce unconstitutional gun control. This is not the last laugh, and we are fully invested in ensuring this law is defeated. GOA will continue to fight until lower courts, executives, and lawmakers at all levels fall in line with the Bruen precedent.
Erich Pratt
GOA Senior Vice President
May 5, 2023
Illinois assault weapons ban back in effect as courts play ping pong with gun control
It is extremely frustrating. But it is not foolish until they have to pay a price. It going to continue until the law is enforced and we see some trials.
WMDs including AR15 do not belong in civilian hands. There has been enough people slaughtered. Gun reform will pass. The future will hopefully be bright and not with blood.
Chihuahua Files @nursebetty88
Tweeted on May 1, 2023
I love In Chains @InChainsInJail response:
Imagine being so stupid as to think AR-15s are WMDs.
Also, no, honey, violently violating peaceful people’s human rights – like you want to do – always ends in blood.
It is difficult to imagine. I would have never imagined it but there it is in real life. As many others have said, genius has limits but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
The political left will not and cannot tolerate dissent. Read The Gulag Archipelago for just one of millions of horror stories demonstrating this. The Second Amendment Foundation Second Amendment Foundation and its founder have been a victim of this and are fighting back:
According to the complaint, “Over the last two years, the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s Office (“CPD”) has carried out an expansive, highly intrusive probe into the private affairs of SAF, CCRKBA, CDFE, SBA, LPP, MMM, Mr. Gottlieb, and his family. It has served Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) on each of the plaintiffs, including two on Mr. Gottlieb, citing the same consumer protection laws Mr. Ferguson was recently found to have abused.” The complaint refers to a recent Washington Supreme Court ruling which “held unanimously that Mr. Ferguson’s office improperly used Washington Consumer Protection and Charitable Solicitations Acts to suppress constitutionally protected speech with which he disagreed.”
This is the complaint filed in court.
I hope Mr. Ferguson enjoys his trial and those to come.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation continues to tarnish its own reputation by vastly downplaying — by a factor of more than 10 — the number of incidents in which armed Americans stop spree killers. According to the FBI, the same people who can find no evidence of crime on Hunter Biden’s laptop, only 4.4% of these incidents were stopped by a good guy “civilian” with a gun. Analysis by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows the actual number is closer to 50% or more in some instances.
John Boch
October 7, 2022
FBI Massively Understates Shooting Statistics: Analysis Show Armed Americans Stop About Half of Active Killer Attacks
When I read things like this I frequently think, “You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you.”
Are you compensating for something?
William Wallace @bwoll1219
Tweeted on January 24, 2023
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
It’s sometimes amazing how quickly they fall back to middle-school insults. This shows just how weak their case is.
For years, an element of the gun-owning community has been belligerently defensive without ever acknowledging this problem. They certainly have not proposed any real, viable solution.
So I would say that the rest of us need to stop mollifying them. Forget all that nonsense about the Second Amendment…
If others won’t say it, I will: We do not need 400 million guns in our society — and there are very strong reasons to get rid of almost all of them.
Russ Baker
April 24, 2023
Why Nearly All of America’s 400 Million Guns Have Got To Go
Stack up buttercup.
Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
The Supreme Court in
Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess
firearms and may use them for self-defense. PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens
rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the
support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens. For the reasons fully set out below, the overly broad reach of PICA
commands that the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs be granted.Stephen P. McGlynn
April 28, 2023
Harrel v. Raoul
It is a nice ruling but it is at the district level. I don’t think the appeals court will be as friendly.
Via Miles in the comments. The title of this post was stolen from him.
See also SAF Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois Semi-Auto Ban. The FPC was also involved in this. I donate thousands of dollars to them each year. It is money well spent. Please consider donating as well.
NOBODY deserves to be fucking MURDERED, fucking SHOT in the head, just because they’re trying to break into your home with a fucking crowbar. Stop perpetuating gun violence.
Neily Dan @neily_dan
Tweeted on April 25, 2023
Defense of your home from someone forcibly entering your home with a lethal weapon is murder. I’ll have to think about that….
Hmmm… No. And I’ll just keep saying no until I run out of ammo.
These weapons of war, assault weapons, have no reason other than mass murder. Their only purpose is to kill humans as rapidly as possible in large numbers.
Jay Inslee
April 25, 2023
Washington Is Now the 10th State With a Logically and Constitutionally Dubious ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban
If they really where “weapons of war” then that means they are protected by the Miller decision.
If their “only purpose really is to kill humans as rapidly as possible” then all my AR-15s must be malfunctioning because I have probably fired 10,000 rounds through them without killing anyone.
It is very clear Inslee is delusional or evil. And my bet is on evil.
SAF filed a lawsuit the same day as Inslee signed the bill into law.
I think there is a fair chance of getting a preliminary injunction. And I have a sliver of hope that someday we will get to see Inslee enjoy his trial.
Those of us who are not gun fetishists are supposed to “keep our powder dry” on the subject, but it must be said: The Second Amendment is as antique as a muzzle-loaded long gun, and should be treated as a historical artifact.
…
The need for a well-regulated militia, crucial to the early history of the country, is no longer in play. We need to rewrite the amendment, dispensing with the oddball capitalization and punctuation, to fit the times:
The right of the people to serve in the armed services or the National Guard, or to serve as law enforcement officers if duly qualified, shall not be infringed.
Kirk Swearingen
April 23, 2023
The Second Amendment is a ludicrous historical antique: Time for it to go
It is as if he misses the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. It is for the people to preserve their free state by defending against a tyrannical government. It is not the right of the people to learn to shoot guns under the direction of government.
Reading the entire screed, I find it very telling that he ignores that in the Heller decision all nine Supreme Justices agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. They were not unanimous on the application to the particulars of the application of it to the D.C. law. But, they did all agree on the individual right aspect. Swearingen apparently believes he is a better constitutional scholar than all nine SCOTUS justices combined.
Lots of other “errors” could be pointed out but with that delusion, ignorance, or indicator of evil intent in your pocket you know you can confidently ignore anything further he has to say.
But don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
You can’t help but wonder how long before the border, for decades little more than a welcoming line on maps, becomes hardened somehow.
It already is, psychologically. It’s getting so you have to remind yourself that the two states are still part of the same country, with a common history and traditions. (The governors definitely need this counsel.) But when one side is threatening doctors in say, Coeur d’Alene, with a crime for even suggesting that citizens might travel to the other side — to Spokane, say — for their health care, wouldn’t a logical step at some point be to try to stop the citizens from going?
Same with buying assault weapons, except in the other direction?
I am not making a prediction that we will someday have a literal “Checkpoint Charlie” on the Idaho-Washington border.
But everything else written in this column sounds completely insane, yet it’s all true. So I’ve learned in this era of America fracturing — don’t shrug about the prospect that the crackup may be only just beginning.
Danny Westneat
April 22, 2023
The Cold War between WA and neighbor Idaho gets hotter
I have sometimes wondered about a similar checkpoint. Although I envisioned it at the line between King County (which contains Seattle) and anything east of there.
In any case, the difference in gun availability will be resolved in a year or two as the most oppressive of Washington gun laws will be struck down by the courts. I expect the abortion issue will remain for some time.
This is almost one of the fractally wrong articles. From the conclusion, the paragraphs, the sentences, on to the premises are wrong:
Back on the farm, we didn’t need weapons of war
The Second Amendment allows us to bear arms, and there are plenty of guns available to suit every instance necessary in a civilized society! What the Second Amendment doesn’t say is that everyone has the right to bear weapons of war — those that were designed to kill humans fast and with one bullet. Ordinary people do not need assault rifles with oversized magazines containing high velocity bullets.
I’ll just make one point and let you roll your eyes at the rest of his errors and/or lies.
The Second Amendment doesn’t “allow use to bear arms”. It guarantees the government will not infringe upon our right to bear arms. And, in the Miller decision SCOTUS said that means it protects the right to own firearms used by the militia. Hence, “weapons of war” are specifically protected.