SCOTUS Tackles Marijuana Use & Gun Rights

Currently under federal statute, a person who regularly uses marijuana cannot possess a firearm.

This goes against the Second Amendment's rights afforded to people. 

The Supreme Court will hear a case calling to question the constitutionality of the statute. 

Pew Pew Tactical posted:

More than 90 petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration, with the justices only agreeing to hear three – one of which will settle the debate on marijuana use and gun possession.

In a six-page orders list, the Supreme Court said it would hear United States v. Hemani – the only gun-related issue to be argued in front of justices this term.

The case aims to get to the bottom of whether federal statute 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. The statute currently prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who ‘is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.’

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS To Take Up Hawaii Gun Ban

Above, up to now, Hawaii is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to be a gun owner there. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

The state of Hawaii, like California, has a state government that is dominated by the Democrat Party. You know, the anti-Second Amendment party. 

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that they will take up Hawaii's concealed carry gun ban.

According to Gun Owners of America:

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up a case challenging a Hawaii law that bans concealed carry almost everywhere.

In 2022, when it handed down its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court settled one of the most important constitutional questions of our time: The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is protected under the Second Amendment.

That should have been the end of the matter. In Hawaii, however, lawmakers responded with defiance instead of compliance with their so-called carry law (Act 52). Even if you don’t live in Hawaii, be aware that it is doing what anti-gunners in your state would love to do.

Under this law, permit holders — people who have undergone mandatory training, passed background checks and followed every rule — are effectively barred from carrying a firearm almost anywhere. Parks, sidewalks, beaches, government property, banks and even most private property are all off-limits. A carry permit in Hawaii may as well be used to discard chewed-up gum.

To read more, go here.

SCOTUS To Take Up Ban On Gun Ownership For Marijuana Users

The federal statute of banning firearm possession by marijuana users is likely going to be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

I have always felt that this law was ridiculous.

According to Townhall:

The Supreme Court will consider hearing a gun control case related to a federal ban on firearm possession by marijuana users.

The high court is reportedly expected to have a private discussion on whether it will take up the case of US v. Cooper on September 29. The law has been roundly criticized by gun rights advocates who argue that it is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The case centers on LaVance LeMarr Cooper, who was prosecuted for owning a firearm as a marijuana user, which made him a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal criminal statute that bars certain people from owning firearms or ammunition.

This subsection targets those who unlawfully use controlled substances.

To read more, go here. 

California Sides With Mexico Against US Gun Industry

Besides turning California into a hellhole cesspool, radical Democrat liberals have been trying to diminish Second Amendment rights.

Gun control radicals are siding with Mexico against gun manufacturers and the Second Amendment.

According to the Buckeye Firearms Association:

The willingness of some in the U.S. to aid a foreign power in an assault on American industry and Americans’ Constitutional rights is sad and disturbing.

On Jan. 17, California Attorney General Rob Bonta proclaimed his support for Mexico’s position in the ongoing case Smith & Wesson Brands Inc, et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The case, now at the U.S. Supreme Court, is an attempt by the Mexican government, working with U.S.-based gun control advocates, to undo the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), make the U.S. firearms industry a scapegoat for Mexican lawlessness, and impose billions of dollars in liability on American gun manufacturers for violence perpetrated by violent criminals south of the border.

Readers should know that the PLCAA was enacted in 2005, with broad bipartisan support, to protect the firearms industry from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits. In the mid-1990s, gun control advocates, big city politicians, and trial attorneys teamed up to use the courts to bilk the gun industry for millions and force them to agree to gun control measures that gun control supporters were unable to enact in Congress. The suits sought to hold members of the industry liable for the criminal behavior of those who misused their products.

I, for one, am glad that I moved out of Commiefornia. This coming week will mark seven years since I did so.

To read more, go here.

 

Supreme Court Hearing Could Shape Future of Motorhome Sales “Ban”

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) may have to face the U.S. Supreme Court over its regulations on emissions including those that could effectively ban the sale of new motorized motorhomes.

RV Travel reported:

The Supreme Court and motorhomes? Is there a connection? Possibly, because the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the authority of a California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation. While the regulation is not specific to the one that will effectively shut down the sale of new motorhomes in California, decisions in the case could have a bearing on motorhome sales. 

To read more, go here.

SCOTUS Asked To Review California Gun Show Ban

Years ago, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors banned gun shows on county property, i.e., the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds (or Fairplex) in Pomona. This effectively killed the Great Western Gun show, which was the biggest gun show in California.

This ban did not come without a fight as citizens (including myself) attended the Board of Supervisors meetings to oppose this ban. Liberals on the Board passed it.

Since then, the state of California has also banned gun shows on state property. The fight may be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court as it was asked to hear the challenge to the state law.

The Washington Times reported:

A group that organizes gun shows at county fairgrounds in California has asked the Supreme Court to hear a challenge against laws restricting the buying and selling of guns on state property.

One of the laws prohibits anyone to “contract for, author or ally the sale of any firearm or ammunition on the property or in the buildings that comprise the Del Mar Fairgrounds.” Another regulation does the same at the Orange County Fair and Event Center.

The state later expanded its legislation to cover all state-owned land.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the challengers, reasoning the law did not meaningfully burden their constitutional rights.

The pro-gun challengers, including the Second Amendment Foundation, argue that the laws intend to ban gun shows and infringe on the speech that takes place at the events.

If the pro-gun show people prevail in their fight against the state ban, it could conceivably end Los Angeles County's similar ban. We shall see.

To read more, go here.

Court Upholds Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrants

A federal three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a law banning possession of firearms by illegal immigrants is legal.

According to an article in Reuters:

Aug 28 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court upheld a federal law that bars migrants who are in the United States illegally from possessing guns, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man convicted of unlawfully having a handgun that the ban was unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Tuesday, opens new tab that the ban was still valid even after recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have expanded gun rights by requiring firearms restrictions to be in keeping with the nation's history and tradition.

The panel said those Supreme Court rulings did not unequivocally undermine an earlier decision by the 5th Circuit holding that the plain text of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not encompass immigrants in the county illegally.

"We should not extend rights to illegal aliens any further than what the law requires," U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, a conservative appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, wrote in a concurring opinion.

I agree with this decision. In a nutshell, illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS Sides With J6rs

Things are getting worse and worse for the Democrats!

 

Trump Wins Supreme Court Ballot Decision

"9-0 UNANIMOUS Supreme Court rules that Donald Trump can run for President, will remain on the 2024 ballot." - posted by Donald Trump Jr. at X.

Even the liberal justices sided with Trump!

SCOTUS: Texas Can’t Block Federal Agents From Border

Above, Texas and U.S. flags along freeway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a long-standing rule that the federal government has sole authority to enforce border protection laws.

Unfortunately, the federal government, under His Fraudulency Joe Biden, is not enforcing the border. They are allowing thousands of illegal aliens to flood into the country.

The Texas Tribune reported:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered Texas to allow federal border agents access to the state’s border with Mexico, where Texas officials have deployed miles of concertina wire.

The order did not explain justices’ decisions. For now, it effectively upholds longstanding court rulings that the Constitution gives the federal government sole responsibility for border security.

In October of last year, Texas sued the federal government after Border Patrol agents cut some of the wire strung along the Rio Grande, arguing the Department of Homeland Security destroyed the state’s property and interfered in Texas’ border security efforts.

The 5-4 order from the Supreme Court vacated a previous injunction from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that prevented Border Patrol agents from cutting the concertina wire.

The ruling would have been fine if the court ordered the Biden Administration to enforce border security. But they didn't.

To read the full article, go here.

ACLU Defends Representation of NRA Before SCOTUS

It has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows. 

In the case involving the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Rifle Association, the Bill of Rights, specifically, the First Amendment, has them joining together before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ACLU is joining the NRA's case at SCOTUS over violations of their First Amendment rights, which has caused a backlash by radical leftist gun control groups.

Mediate reported:

The ACLU announced on Saturday its decision to represent the NRA in a major First Amendment case before the United States Supreme Court, and offered defense on social media for doing so after backlash from gun control advocates and even its own New York chapter.

The American Civil Liberties Union shared on X (formerly Twitter) the breaking news on Saturday that it will be representing the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment case at the Supreme Court.

BREAKING: We’re representing the NRA at the Supreme Court in their case against New York’s Department of Financial Services for abusing its regulatory power to violate the NRA’s First Amendment rights.

The government can’t blacklist an advocacy group because of its viewpoint.

— ACLU (@ACLU) December 9, 2023

To read more, go here. 

Lawsuit Filed Against L.A. County Sheriff On Concealed Carry Permits

The Los Angeles County Sheriff has apparently been dragging its feet in issuing concealed carry permits in violation of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision.

In response, a lawsuit has been filed against the Sheriff Department.

Breitbart reported:

The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) filed suit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department claiming the department is not issuing concealed carry permits in compliance with Bruen (2022).

On June 23, 2022, Breitbart News reported that the Supreme Court of the United States issued the Bruen decision in which the court ruled against New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance.

In addition to striking the proper cause requirement, Bruen made clear that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense. It also required that in cases involving challenges to gun control, courts are to weigh the controls by looking for historical precedents in American history and tradition rather than in claims that the controls serve a specific purpose.

The suit was filed December 4, 2023. Other plaintiffs joined with CRPA, including the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners of California.

The plaintiffs contend that the LA County Sheriff’s Department maintains “carry permit issuance policies and laws that make it extremely difficult, if not outright impossible or impermissibly time consuming [to obtain a permit].”

To read more, go here. 

Heinrich Sponsors Unconstitional Bill Banning Most Rifles

Above, New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich.

"Life is tough. It's tougher when you're stupid!" 

The above line is generally attributed to John Wayne, but there's no evidence to support this. However, New Mexico's Senator Martin Heinrich is showing that someone can be just as stupid even with an easy life.

Heinrich, Arizona's Sen. Mark Kelly and others have introduced an unconstitutional extremist anti-gun bill.

The Piñon Post reported:

In a recent move that has stirred controversy, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, along with Democrat Senators Angus King of Maine, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, introduced the extremist Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act to outlaw most firearms in the United States.

Heinrich claimed there is an urgent need for Congress to take away Americans’ right to bear arms by banning some of the most popular weapons in the country.

The proposed legislation will negatively impact law-abiding gun owners while neglecting the root causes of violence. 

The GOSAFE Act seeks to regulate gas-operated semi-automatic weapons by establishing a list of prohibited firearms, preventing unauthorized modifications, and mandating pre-approval for future designs. The bill has a few exceptions but still bans rifles with 10 rounds or more — a majority of AR-15s and other rifles. One in 20 Americans own an AR-15 rifle. 

The article then lists the exempted firearms.

The bill is clearly unconstitutional. The Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court held that banning the legal sale and possession entire classes of firearms is unconstitutional.

To read the full article, go here.

NM Gun-Grabbers Are At It Again

The Democrat gun-grabbers will be holding a legislative committee preview Tuesday of proposed bills infringing on our Second Amendment rights for the 2024 New Mexico legislative session.

Piñon Post reported:

On Tuesday, the Legislative Courts, Corrections, and Justice Committee, chaired by Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces), will preview anti-gun bills that will be reintroduced in the 2024 Legislative Session, along with new proposals that could be brought forth.

Starting at 8:35 a.m., the committee, which is meeting in Mescalero at the Inn of the Mountain Gods, will have a two-hour discussion on the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen U.S. Supreme Court case, which struck down anti-gun laws in the Empire State.

Then, the Committee will discuss proposed anti-gun laws, including banning what they deem “assault weapons,” mandating new higher age restrictions for firearm purchases, imposing waiting periods, increasing background check requirements, attacking gun manufacturers for gun-related incidents, and more.

Most of these bills failed to pass during this year's legislative session. But the Democrats aren't giving up.

To read more, go here. 

Supreme Court Strikes Down Home Equity Theft

Considering the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court these days, any unanimous decision by the court is a major deal.

Such is the case of Tyler vs. Hennepin County in Minnesota that violated the constitution's Fifth Amendment. 

From the Cato Institute:

Today, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that local governments cannot take surplus home equity after liquidating delinquent taxpayers’ property to pay their tax bill. Typically, if a property owner is behind on her property taxes, governments will take the property, liquidate it, and use the funds to pay off the tax bill and any accrued fees. Most states then return any remainder back to the property owner. However, Minnesota and 13 other states maintained a practice of greedily pocketing any surplus equity instead of returning it to the rightful property owner.

That is what happened to 94‐​year‐​old Geraldine Tyler, the plaintiff in Tyler v. Hennepin County. She fell behind on her property taxes, owing $2,700 and another $12,300 in fees. Hennepin County took her property and sold it for $40,000. But instead of returning Ms. Tyler her remaining $25,000, the County took that money for its own use.

The Supreme Court correctly decided that this practice is unconstitutional. Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that governments cannot take more property than necessary to satisfy a tax debt.

To read more, go here. 

Firearm Storage Laws Make NO SENSE...

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed HB 9 into law a few days ago. 

According to the press release on her website, she said:

“Today, New Mexico is making it clear that responsible gun ownership is the law of the land,” said Gov. Lujan Grisham. “This bill is about keeping New Mexicans safe by requiring gun owners to take reasonable steps to secure their weapons – plain and simple.”

Fortunately for us, this is not "the law of the land" as similar laws in other states have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional, most notably in the Heller and Bruen decisions. If a statute is facially unconstitutional (as this one obviously is), the courts have stated that it cannot be enforced. It is null and void.

The issue of safety locks and storage of firearms is not new and Mark W. Smith discusses them in the video below. Such laws are stupid and unconstitutional, he says.

Bruen Attorney: Where 2nd Amendment Lawsuits Stand Today

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has made important decisions on the Second Amendment in their  in Heller and Bruen cases.

Unfortunately, some liberals are trying to skirt the law and the SCOTUS decisions. If anyone needs to view this video, it is liberal legislators, judges and attorneys.

The Bruen attorney explains where the Second Amendment lawsuits stand today in a YouTube video.

The summary of the video:

MUST WATCH INTERVIEW: NYSRPA v. Bruen was decided by the Supreme Court about 8 months ago and much has happened in America's courts since then.  David Thompson, the lawyer whose firm commenced NYSRPA v. Bruen, discusses where the 2nd Amendment stands in America's courts and how best to understand Bruen as applied to current gun control controversies. Very geeky legal discussion here. Mark Smith conducts this breaking news interview.

Turmoil in Courts on Gun Laws

Above, yours truly with the Winchester 94.

Snowflake liberals are upset over a recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment and the lower courts in states around the country may be in "turmoil" as a result. This is good for those who support the Second Amendment. 

U.S. News & World Report has posted an article on what's been happening as a result.

They begin it with:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment is upending gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books.

The high court's ruling that set new standards for evaluating gun laws left open many questions, experts say, resulting in an increasing number of conflicting decisions as lower court judges struggle to figure out how to apply it. 

The Supreme Court’s so-called Bruen decision changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions. Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the justices said.

Under the Supreme Court's new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation."

To read more, go here. 

Appeals Court: Gun Ban On Domestic Abusers Violates Second Amendment

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Second Amendment rights and tossed the conviction of a Texas man who possessed guns while under a restraining order. 

From UPI:

Feb. 3 (UPI) -- A Texas court has ruled that a federal law that bans people with restraining orders due to domestic violence from owning firearms violates the Second Amendment.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday threw out the Justice Department's bid to uphold the conviction of Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who was convicted of possessing guns while under a restraining order for assaulting a former girlfriend.

The court ruled that the law failed the so-called Bruen test, which emerged from the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. vs. Bruen decision in the Supreme Court in June which struck down the state's concealed-carry law, ruling that gun control laws must have a precedent in the gun laws in force when the Constitution was drawn up.

"Through that lens, we conclude that [the law's] ban on possession of firearms is an 'outlier' that our ancestors would never have accepted," Judge Cory Wilson wrote in Thursday's opinion.

To read more, go here. 

High Capacity Magazine Ban Unconstitutional

Audrey Trujillo, moderator of Gun Owners of New Mexico on Facebook, posted the following:

fyi: to whom this may concern

FYI: Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Club v. BRUCK is a 2020 case banning large capacity.magazine in NJ. SCOTUS over turned a 3rd Circuit where 3rd Circuit upheld ban. SCOTUS ruled the ban was unconstitutional. Similar case/s remanded to 9th circuit over California's ban/restrictions. New Mexico's Legislature has several gun control measures they are poised to pass regardless of the constitutional prohibition already issued by SCOTUS. This is harassment of NM citizens.

If a statute is facially unconstitutional, the courts have stated that it cannot be enforced and the legislature may choose to repeal an unconstitutional statute to avoid confusion or to replace that statute with a new version that seeks to reach similar policy goals.

Pass this on!