Via Liberty Park Press, Black Robes Matter! Do You Care About Your Gun Rights?

It is estimated that President Trump will appoint 38% of all judges on the federal bench.

It’s not just the U.S. Supreme Court we have to worry about. Remember that the Miller decision said:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

This was interpreted by lower courts to mean that unless the individual had some reasonable relationship to “a well regulated militia” that the individual was not protected by the 2^nd Amendment. But that’s not what the above passage says. It says the 2^nd Amendment cannot be said to guarantee the right to keep and bear the instrument, the shotgun, or weapon. And this is because the 2^nd Amendment only protects weapons that are part of ordinary military equipment or that could contribute to the common defense. Hence the military M-16 and AK-47s are protected by the 2nd Amendment but the 30-30 hunting rifle is not.

The lower courts are extremely important as well. And if SAF is correct in saying:

President Donald Trump’s first round of federal court nominees “looks very promising,” and provides strong evidence that the president is determined to fulfill one of his most important campaign pledges, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

SAF has launched the Judicial Accountability Project to help vet the nominees.

Black Robes Matter!

Via email from Ry we have a win against New Jersey in a 2nd Amendment case:

Today, the District Court of New Jersey entered the Consent Order re: Tasers

April 25, 2017

Today the Consent Order in New Jersey was entered.  It is attached here for you to read.  The Court finds:

     1.   The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. __(2016).  Further, “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.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 582; Caetano, slip op. at 1 (per curiam).

     2.   Pursuant to the holdings in Heller, McDonald and Caetano, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-3(h), to the extent this statute outright prohibits, under criminal penalty, individuals from possessing electronic arms, is declared unconstitutional that it violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and shall not be enforced.

It only knocks down their law against Tasers, but every little step in the right direction helps.