Part of the wonder of the Bruen decision was the two fold win of no more “two step analysis” and a requirement that the government show that there was an analigus law in 1791 at the time of adoption of the second amendment.

Text and history of the second amendment is the controlling feature of what infringements are allowed.

We have now seen two different cases where the state is turning this upside down.

In one case the judge ruled against an injunction because “The clear reading of the second amendment does not protect the right to manufacture firearms”.  In this case the Judge and the state are arguing that the plaintiffs must provide some sort of historical reference showing that the text and traditions of the second amendment support the manufacture of firearms.

The actual opinion says that the government must show that there is a gun control law that banned or limited the manufacturing of firearms by individuals in 1791.  Thus the Judge has turned the argument upside down.  They have again made it so the plaintiff must prove that the constitution covers their claim via text and tradition.

In California they are doing the same thing.  The state has stated that since the second amendment doesn’t mention magazines and because magazines are not required for a firearm to function that they are ok to ban magazines.

When the Bruen opinion came out we identified the weaknesses in the opinion.  Those came down to “sensitive places” and “uncommon firearms”.  We knew they would look for other methods, and it is clear that they are following cases as much as we are.

In each of the suits brought under Bruen they have watched to see what stuck and what didn’t.

We had one judge state that it wasn’t his job to be a historian, even though that is exactly his job under the American “common law” ideals.  Research is a huge part of dealing the law.  We had another judge decide that “manufacturing” isn’t part of “keep and bear”.  Now the state is arguing again that the plain reading of the constitution doesn’t include magazines.

Keep an eye on how they manipulate the language of the decision. This is how they have been doing this for the last 70 years.

https://videos.gunfreezone.net/videos/watch/9a166910-daec-4a6b-95aa-2d785fbc00d5

The horror!

Feel free to share.

This was the fight back then. Handguns were the mortal enemy of Americans (not the criminals, mind you) and they needed to be controlled/banned.

And it was a fight they kept losing. There was (and still exist) no desire to ban the most popular firearm in the US then or as in 1968 0r 1934, so they had to rebrand themselves. Handgun Control Inc changed its name to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. And then a mythical enemy was created out of a web of technical lies: “Assault Weapons.” And with the help of a dutifully helpful and submissive media, they succeeded in tightening firearms laws across the US. The idea was to get the cart rolling downhill and eventually get all guns out of people’s hands.

Of course, there was a pushback, but it sucked time and effort which could have been used in getting to where we are much earlier.

Never stop fighting because they are not stopping themselves.

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month……

And now the bad news: This measure will have ZERO effect on crime because criminals not only will ignore the measure (because they are criminals, you see) but because they are constitutionally protected from doing so.

Haynes v. United States, 372 F.2d 651 | Casetext Search + Citator

The offense charged includes not only the possession of a firearm, but also the failure to register by the defendant himself [emphasis added]. Such registration would clearly incriminate him as he would thereby have to admit that he was in possession of a firearm which he did not acquire in compliance with Section 5851. * * * The indictment by requiring proof that the defendant himself had not registered the gun has applied Section 5851 in an unconstitutional manner [ 357 F.2d at 309].”

Oops!

But what the hell, it is a good first step, right?

Welcome to the after election party!

We are looking for more guest posts, please contact us if you have something you want to write.

What cases or bills/laws are you following in your area that are 2A related?

What was your biggest surprise of election night?