Mediaboss Marketing

Todays gun control politicians are making it clear. Its not just guns they despise. There are two other primary obstacles to civil disarmament that they loathe.

One is the Second Amendment itself. The other, well, its you the gun owner.

It wasnt that long ago when President Barack Obama lambasted gun owners who refused to roll over to his gun control agenda. Stumping for his first election to The White House, he told fundraisers at a San Francisco event of smalltown Pennsylvania voters that were left behind, especially by the political elites.

And its not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who arent like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations, President Obama said in 2008. Interestingly, it was former U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), later Secretary of State, who rebuked him.

I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America, she said. His remarks are elitist and out of touch.

Of course, that was before she labeled half of America a basket of deplorables in 2016 when she was making her second run for the Oval Office.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trumps supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? former Secretary Clinton said. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Those were also a whole lot of gun owners who couldnt buy into her gun control agenda which included banning the modern sporting rifle (MSR), the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America.

Fast-forward to 2024 and senior Democratic Members of Congress are repeating the same epithets. These were also the same politicians who were the vanguard of President Obamas, Secretary Clintons, and President Joe Bidens gun control agendas. Turns out, insulting and dismissing gun owners as lesser Americans is a popular attitude among Blue State elites.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was rebuked as an elite at an Oxford Union debate on April 25 when she said that certain Americans are poor souls who are looking for some answers. Their biggest sin, according to the Speaker Emeritus, is not bowing to the orthodoxy of the gun control elite.

These poor souls ... are looking for some answers, Rep. Pelosi said. Weve given them to them, but theyre blocked by some of their views on guns they have the three Gs: Guns, Gays, and God.

Rep. Pelosi didnt think that was enough. She said, cultural issues cloud some of their reception of an argument that really is in their interest.

Did you catch that? Gun owners who reject a politically-driven gun control agenda arent thinking in their own self-interests. After all, every other gun control idea especially the most recent overreaching of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to run roughshod on the separation of powers to write criminal law in the place of Congress isnt a bad idea in her mind. She believes President Bidens big government abuse of the rulemaking process is good for voters. Theyre just not bright enough to see it for themselves.

What makes it more insulting, Rep. Pelosi was making that argument at the Oxford Union, a debating society thats held at Britians Oxford University. She trashed American voters on an overseas stage that pitches itself to hosting internationally prominent individuals across politics, academia and popular culture. That stage has hosted President Ronald Reagon, Mother Theresa, and Albert Einstein. It has also hosted former Secretary of State and Climate Envoy John Kerry, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Stacey Abrams and deposed and murdered former Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi.

Thats rare air for a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Shes not alone in her ideas. Rep. Jerry Nadler (R-N.Y.) last week thought he was a tad smarter than the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, who wrote the Second Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Heller decision, that upheld the Second Amendment as a right belonging to the people, not the government.

The Second Amendment reads quote A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, Rep. Nadler said during a hearing last week. It is clearly a right, the Founding Fathers, the Framers were opposed to standing armies. They thought that those were instruments of tyranny and that militia what should be had and the Second Amendment was the guarantee, was framed as a guarantee that you could have a militia, a well-regulated militia, being safe in the security of a free state.

That was the understanding for 200 years until the radical Supreme Court in the Heller decision upended 200 years of Constitutional interpretation and said that Second Amendment has nothing to do with militias, he continued. Its a personal and basically unlimited right. The Supreme Court was wrong in that decision.

Except, thats not what the Second Amendment says. He cherry-picked the parts that support his big-government and gun control agendas. Madison and the U.S. Supreme Court must have collectively rolled their eyes at his continued ignorance to the Bill of Rights. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) wasnt about to let him off the hook.

Apologies to Ranking Member Nadler if this isnt what he stated but I think he might have left out some key words when he read the Second Amendment, and Ill read it here, Rep. Massie explained. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And Im not sure if I heard him say the people. Which applies to all of the people as we well know, and I yield back.

Its insulting to American citizens when Members of Congress intentionally leave the people out of the rights they are endowed with by their Creator. Its insulting to voters when elite politicians disregard them as bitter clingers, deplorables or poor souls who cant be trusted to think, act and vote for themselves. Worse than that, it is breaking faith with the very people these elites are elected to represent and protect their rights from an overreaching government.

Those poor souls the more than 100-plus million gun owning homes in America and the industry that provides the means for exercising their Second Amendment rights know that no one is buying the gun control theyre selling.

Republished with permission from NSSF.

Read more here:
To gun control elitists, 'bitter clingers' are also 'poor souls' - Buckeye Firearms Association

On May 9, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published a split decision vacating the conviction of Steven Duarte for violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).

18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Duarte, who has five prior nonviolent state criminal convictions all punishable for more than a year was charged and convicted under 922(g)(1) after police saw him toss a handgun out of the window of a moving car. Duarte now challenges the constitutionality of his conviction. He argues that, under the Supreme Courts recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him, a nonviolent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society. We agree.

Judge Carlos T. Bea wrote the opinion. Judge Lawrence VanDyke concurred. Judge M. Smith, Jr. dissented.

Duarte had been previously convicted of five nonviolent crimes in California. Under California law, each offense could result in a prison term of more than one year, making them felonies, according to federal law. The five convictions were for the following:

Given the history of the Ninth Circuit, it is almost certain the government of California will ask for an en banc (all the judges) review of this case. En banc is likely to be granted.

En banc may be put on hold pending the Supreme Court decision in the Rahimi case, due in June. The Rahimi case has some similarities to this case. The Supreme Court decision in Rahimi will be a binding precedent. It makes sense to wait until the end of June to see what the Supreme Court will do with Rahimi.

The character of Duarte is impossible to determine from what little we are told about his case. Duartes character should have nothing to do with the determination of whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. It is the nature of the system that multiple charges be dropped during plea bargaining in exchange for a guilty plea on one charge. At first glance, a recent California Supreme Court decision about evading a police officer seems relevant.

On May 2, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion striking down some instances of evading a police officer as probable cause for detaining an individual.

Duartes charges are quite different.

The felony convictions of evading a police officer on Duartes record are almost certainly for evading a police officer while in a vehicle. In essence, this means fleeing police pursuit in a vehicle. Those convictions are probably California Vehicle Code 2800.2, felony reckless evading. The charge is a wobbler, meaning it can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony.

The California Supreme Court decision on evading a police officer does not affect charges of fleeing from a police officer in a vehicle and is irrelevant to the Duarte case.

We know Duarte has had several unwelcome contacts with law enforcement in Southern California. His case has become a test case for restoring Second Amendment Rights.

Republished with permission from AmmoLand.

Continue reading here:
Ninth Circuit panel: Convicted felons have Second Amendment rights - Buckeye Firearms Association

File photo of a participant shooting a pistol at the Laramie Rifle Range.

The State of Wyoming joined 20 other states in a lawsuit arguing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is overstepping its authority and infringing on Americans Second Amendment right to privately buy and sell firearms.

In the lawsuit, the coalition of states argue that the ATFs regulatory restrictions exceed the authority granted to the agency by Congress and are a violation of the Second Amendment.

Yet again this administration has demonstrated its contempt for the Constitution and the separation of powers, Governor Gordon said.

According to the complaint, The right to keep and bear arms is central to our country's history and traditions, so Congress must be careful when addressing that right through federal legislation. Under the final rule, the defendants would put innocent firearms sales between law-abiding friends and family members within the reach of federal regulation, the complaint continues.

The Biden Administration is attempting to treat every legal gun owner as a commercial gun dealer, and every gun sale or trade as a commercial transaction, Governor Gordon noted. The Biden administration is exceeding its authority and targeting our Second Amendment rights without going through Congress.

In December, Wyoming joined 25 other states in signing acomment letteropposing the new rule. The states have asked the Court to vacate the rule as contrary to law. A copy of the filing may be foundhere.

Read more here:
Wyoming joins 21-State Coalition in Lawsuit in Defending Second Amendment Rights from Federal Overreach - The Cheyenne Post

This is part ofHow Originalism Ate the Law, a Slate series about the legal theory that ruined everything.

Perhaps no lower court judge has condemned the U.S. Supreme Courts reliance on bogus history and racist values as sharply as Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins. In several scathing opinions, Eddins has decried the conservative supermajoritys radical reversal of settled precedent in the name of a conservative theory, originalism, thats both dangerously retrograde and totally unworkable. In Tuesdays Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern interviewed the justice about his very public criticisms of SCOTUS and his embrace of state constitutionalism to limit the fallout in Hawaii. Their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dahlia and Mark will interview Eddins in Washington on Tuesday at a live taping of Amicus. Buy your tickets here.

Mark Joseph Stern: Youve written very powerfully that judges are not historians. And yet it seems that the U.S. Supreme Court is calling upon all lower courts to play the role of amateur, dilettante historian. Can you talk about some of the practical problems with that?

Justice Todd Eddins: In a wonderful opinion, a federal judge wrote that we are not trained as historianswe practice law, not history. And thats the problem. I think real historians look at the judiciary with shock to see that we think history has such certitude. And we dont have the opportunity, or even the ability, to weigh into the rigor of historical methodology and historical integrity when deciding cases. How are supposed to decide what is history? Do we outsource it to A.I.? Do we deputize our law clerks as historians? Do we rely on partisan amicus briefs? I dont want to do that. But it seems like the United States Supreme Court tends to cherry-pick history that way.

Then you run into the problem of Whose history are we really talking about, anyway? Theres certainly a few white men who decided things back centuries ago, when women and people of color were excluded from public participation and deliberation. Their views are nonexistent. So its absolutely impossible to try to root around in history and excavate 18th- and 19th-century experiences and try to apply them to 21st-century problems. Aside from being so whacked-out and silly, its just not practically possible.

Dahlia Lithwick: Im hearing you say a couple different things. One is that this is not doable. This is not our job. Another is that its insane to put a thumb on the scale and somehow carve out women and people of color, who were expressly excluded from participating in the moment of constitutional deliberation that were now enshrining as the only viable moment. And then youre saying this third thing, which is that, by the way, this is a completely bonkers way to organize public life right now because technology has changed so radically.

All those things are certainly reasonable critiques of originalism, but you have chosen to do something different, which is to weave them into your judicial opinion writing. Im very curious what led you to start using your work to offer these very public critiques, which are very meta and usually not what jurists do.

Eddins: I think a lot of federal judges are effectively silenced. They dont feel theyre able to really critique what the high courts doing. But state courts are not beholden to the United States Supreme Court; we are essentially insulated when we decide things based on state constitutional provisions. And as Ive sat out here in my office in the middle of the Pacific over the past few years and watched whats come out of the U.S. Supreme Court, I realized I had the opportunity to really voice some of these thoughts that have been percolating in my head. I think I have a responsibility to speak out against the horrors and treachery that goes on at the highest court in the nation.

I mean, its absolutely astounding that originalism revives the value judgments of a racist, misogynistic, homophobic society and constrains the value judgments of contemporary judges. Youre talking about times when human beings enslaved other human beings, when women were just an appendage of their husbands and had no contractual rights and no property rights. It makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding eras culture, and I had the opportunity to write that. Im lucky to have such a supportive court; they said Go for it, because thats what we collectively believe.

Lithwick: For a lot of judges who are trying to apply all these new tests coming out of the Supreme Court, theres this deep sense of nihilism because suddenly everything is new. Were in a wholly different world. Yet there are normative reasons why we need to have a dependable, predictable interpretation of the Constitution. And that was one thing I read in your Wilson opinion: the sense that we need to know what the law is. It cant just be Etch A Sketch-ed, erased, and rewritten on the fly.

Eddins: You know, when precedent is for suckers and we dont know whether settled law will become unsettled every June, its really hard for the judiciary to function. Its hard for judges to operate when theres a lack of stability. And its not just judges; its the litigants, the lawyers, the law professors who have to tear up their syllabuses. I mean, its fundamental to our American system of justice that law works incrementally, that cases build upon cases, and that we rely on precedent. Thats the stability of the law. And when you have a group of people who come in and disregard precedent, it really unsettles things; it causes chaos. People dont know how to operate.

The law is now constantly shiftingyou said nihilism, and thats actually what it is. I think its also a lack of humility, a lack of respect for all the law thats been out there for centuries of the American judicial system. Who gave these originalists the right to kill the Constitution? And when the Constitution is killed, where do we stand? It makes it so difficult for courts throughout the land.

Stern: In the Wilson case, you were tasked with applying Bruens history and tradition test by poring over the historical record to find these analogs from 1789. Can you talk about what the process was like for you, trying to apply this ridiculously amorphous newfangled test and turn it into something that looks like law?

Eddins: It was actually a pretty fun process because the U.S. Supreme Court totally disregarded the text, history, tradition, and purpose of the Second Amendment. So in Wilson, we decided to play on the originalism playing field and show how the justices were incredibly dishonest about how law and facts are cherry-picked. That was not a difficult thing to do.

Now, what we also did was trace back the real history and tradition of Hawaii. And if we trace back the tradition of our state, there absolutely was no right to carry lethal weapons in public for possible self-defense. It was an incredibly joyous exercise for me because I knew we were on the correct legal terrain. The Hawaii Constitutions counterpart to the Second Amendment has the exact same words. So I thought, Hey, heres an opportunity to take down the dishonest U.S. Supreme Courts analysis of the Second Amendment, which snubbed federalism principles and increased homicide throughout the nation. Wilson really opened up the opportunity to articulate the importance of state constitutionalism in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens. Of course, Dobbs raised awareness of interpreting state constitutions to, ideally, protect every state citizens fundamental rights, since the U.S. Supreme Court is abdicating that responsibility.

Stern: Over the last few years, conservative litigants and justices tried to strip the ability to protect voting rights from state Supreme Courts. And its hard not to think they were motivated by fear of state Supreme Courts acting independently, departing from the phony originalism of the Roberts court and actually protecting the right to vote, which we used to consider fundamental.

Eddins: Absolutely. And again, thats just more dishonesty. The U.S. Supreme Courts decisions are really destroying democracy. Its just race to the extreme in case after case. It tears at the fabric of our nation and what I view our federal Constitution to be. And now, over the last few weeks, it seems like its not just personal values and preferences that theyre injecting into their jurisprudence; they also give preference to specific individuals, and thats where the court is truly eroding confidence in the judicial system.

Stern: When you say theyre giving preference to specific individuals, youre thinking about Donald Trump in the presidential immunity case?

Eddins: I am.

Original post:
Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins condemns the bogus originalism of SCOTUS. - Slate

Today'sU.S. v. Duarte, written by Judge Carlos Bea and joined by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, concludes that the Second Amendment protects some felons (at least after the end of their criminal sentences). The majority begins with the principle that:

[The Supreme Court's decision in] Bruen instructs us to assess all Second Amendment challenges through the dual lenses of text and history. If the Second Amendment's plain text protects the person, his arm, and his proposed course of conduct, it then becomes the Government's burden to prove that the challenged law is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

It reasons, much historical analysis later, with the view that:

A more faithful application of Bruen requires the Government to proffer Founding-era felony analogues that are "distinctly similar" to Duarte's underlying offenses and would have been punishable either with execution, with life in prison, or permanent forfeiture of the offender's estate.

And, the majority concludes, this defendant's particular past convictionsfor vandalism, drug possession, evading a peace officer, and being a felon in possession of a firearmdid not qualify.

Judge Milan Smith dissents, concluding that pre-BruenNinth Circuit precedent categorically holds that all felons lack Second Amendment rights; the majority and the dissent disagree on whether Bruenoverruled that precedent. The dissent, in particular, argues that (1) Bruen"repeatedly limited its definition of the scope of the right to 'law-abiding' citizens, using that phrase no fewer than fourteen times throughout the opinion," (2) "Nothing in Bruen reflects a retreat from the Court's earlier statement in Heller that 'longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill' are 'presumptively lawful,'" and (3) concurrences in Bruen reaffirmed theHellerview with regard to felons.

The panel majority responds, among other things, that "we do not think that the Supreme Court, without any textual or historical analysis of the Second Amendment, intended to decide the constitutional fate of so large a population in so few words and with such little guidance. [W]e agree with the Third Circuit that Bruen's scattered references to 'law-abiding' and 'responsible' citizens did not implicitly decide the issue in this case." It also takes the view that, "'Simply repeat[ing] Heller's language' about the 'presumptive[] lawful[ness]' of felon firearm bans will no longer do after Bruen," given Bruen's call for a historical analysis, and given that "the historical pedigree of felon firearm bans was never an issue the Heller Court purported to resolve."

The government will very likely petition for rehearing and for en banc review in this case. That review will probably be influenced by the Supreme Court's Rahimicase, which deals with whether people subject to domestic violence restraining orders lose their Second Amendment rights, and which is due to come down from the Court by June 30. The question inRahimiand the question in this case aren't identical, but they share considerable similarities.

Note also that the government has already asked the Supreme Court to consider the Third Circuit'sRangecase, which reached a similar result. That the petition is being held, pendingRahimi. It seems likely that the Court will instruct the Third Circuit to reconsider the question in light of theRahimiholding, just as the Ninth Circuit panel (and perhaps the en banc court) will be doing the same.

Link:
Ninth Circuit Panel Concludes That Some Felons May Have Second Amendment Rights - Reason