Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the recent rulings in the matter of Bevis v. City of Naperville, yet another …
50 Comments
My screwdriver is dangerous. A gallon of water is dangerous. Politician are dangerous (the dictator governors of five states democide murdered more people than did 911 terrorists). "I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson
Riddle me this Robin: Since Caetano v Massachusetts recognized that 200,000 stun guns met the “in common use” criteria; does that not throw the door completely open if NFA regulated firearms are possessed in numbers greater than 200,000? For example the AFT’s reclassification of pistols with stabilizing braces as being SBRs. The estimated number is 40 million. Don’t they now qualify as being in common use thereby beyond the NFA’s regulatory authority? I venture to estimate that suppressors and machine guns each exceed 200,000 held by private citizens! Hasn’t the AFT over expanded their authority to the point that they now lack jurisdiction? Mull that over!
And when "we" call firearms dangerous we should specify POTENTIALLY dangerous. My stored firearms as they are right now present no danger to anyone. Regardless of the type, design, caliber or capacity. It is only with intent or action from USER they they might pose a danger. The the same thing can be said of my vehicles, my cleaning supplies or even my carpentry tools. Let's start talking about potential or perceived danger versus actual danger.
Particularly dangerous. Important distinction there. I don't think people are generally advocating for general ownership of miniguns, surface to air missiles, or nukes.
US v Miller was a sham…. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. And the court remanded the case to the District court for further proceedings, which never happened. Bad jurisprudence
Judge needs to be removed from the bench he is violating the Constitution overreach from the government and overreach from the court and the charger who is probably a liberal judge who doesn't care about the conversation or the Bill of Rights
She is looney tunes, should be disbarred as willfully disregarding the US constitution, No right of the government exists to limit commonly used firearms. You are voided and moot.
Hate to nit pic but you stated that weapons are "designed to be dangerous". I believe that is incorrect. Weapons are designed to be safe to the user and their purpose. Purpose is determined by the end user. Don't get me wrong I understand what you meant. I think I am writing because ATF and the assholes who have written the words "designed or redesigned etc" which is bullshit. Same crap about the brace designed to be strapped to arm and that it is redesigned if a person doesn't use it as the original designers vision was. All bullshit. Face it I know you are a lawyer but the ridiculousness of making definitions and changing them to suit the day of the week. Really? Hey tell me what the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is and how it could connect to lets say…………..a politician who is taking money as The Big Guy, allowing an invasion of our borders, putting and paying for a foreign country (lets say Ukraine) to be put ahead of people he swore to represent, obstructs and impairs foreign investigations through the use of US tax dollars and also swears he will do everything in his power to NOT uphold the US Constitution? What would be the practical and real application, not bullshit? Bet you won't LMAO.
Judges who don't follow the constitution should be removed from the bench and forfeit all pension and money's accumulated during tenure……gun groups should start suing them personally….
There are so few unusual weapons out there when one is a firearm enthusiast. Many people that are ignorant to types of firearms or is not a collector may be unaware of how common most firearms are.
Justice Kendall does an outstanding job of highlighting the dangers of activist judges burrowing their way into our legal system to undermine the very document that they took an oath to uphold.
I wonder what her honor's thoughts on the right to self defense would be were she to find herself being accosted by armed criminals.
I have to stop you right there. We do not have a rich tradition of regulation for something that is dangerous and unusual. We have a statement made on a flawed interpretation of a single passage from a book where the rest of the passage that narrowed it to an affray was neglected. Even with that, it was decided that is MAY be possible to regulate something that is dangerous and unusual. That does not make for a rich history of such regulation. And it has been decided that banning a class of weapon is not allowed. Banning is not regulation. This is not designed to be trollish or angry in any way. I like your content, but that piece is a big contention for me, and it is my understanding that the supreme court knows about this discrepeancy. I am hoping that they plan to address it at some point, though I imagine they are waiting for the right case to do it on. Also, this judge makes me literally feel ill that feelings are more important to someone in such a position than the law that is the backbone of our country.
Since I am NOT a member of any bar association, I can say with confidence that this judge is full if 5h_!t. She will likely be overturned on appeal and become professionally embarrassed for not understanding the superior law of the land.
I live in Illinois and make guns for a living since I've never broken a law in my long life. Now, I can't even buy the guns I make in this state. What fuking sense does that make?
Comment on the "bar" and watching what you say.. Great organization that uses threats of coercion to keeping your mouth shut when Judges do this egregious reinterpreting law to support knowing ly unconstitutional precedent and that is no different that CCP and other tyrannical gov. when the courts support the "party" so the "party" can send goon squads to do as they want.
I would think 2A supporting lawyers could enmass show up to public comments on challenging the law before its law how its UC? You'd think reminding them and their oath and then going down a litany of how UC their proposed law is, line item by line item.
A firearm is not dangerous in and of itself likewise a car is not dangerous in and of itself it takes a person being stupid Reckless or intentionally and criminally acting with either one of those a firearm is only dangerous if it blows up when you shoot it and is common amongst that particular model or brand of firearm
Ok so here's a suggestion…instead of playing along with their stupid fuckin' games maybe everyone should just stand their ground and refuse to comply. ????
When judges materially support depots. Be an active accessory to unconstitutional laws. This person is useing their judgeship to deny people thier God given rights.
My biggest concern is the speed that unconstitutional laws are passed in comparison to the lengthy process of having to get them overturned in multiple courts. New York is a classic example of this. Based on the momentum of combat the 2A is losing the battle. If this is not resolved soon the reason for the 2A will eventually become evident as our founding fathers intended, and that is to protect against tyranny.
RMS by themselves are not dangerous. It is the outward use by individuals for the purposes of defence that makes them dangerous.
Unusual will need to be decided at some point.
Regulation, as employed by the executive branch, will also need to be addressed soon as it shirks the fiduciary duty of Congress with regard to their power to legislate.
That’s why it’s so important to know all about the 2nd amendment rights for us to justify the importance of firearms as a means of protection and self defense
Can't call a judge actively going against the constitution honorable. She needs to have her position revoked. It sucks because seeing coverage of scary mary online, her approach to dealing with repeat offenders is phenomenal. However, when you're actively twisting words of higher courts to fit your agenda you don't deserve to be in position.
when the teacher calls on you for the first discussion question but you didnt do the reading so you just give your opinion while glazing over the reading….
The inferior court Judge Kendall will be kicking and screaming as she is dragged from the courtroom after she hsas been removed from the bench for providing the Supreme Court the decision that will allow them to put to rest all infringements on the Second Amendment.
My screwdriver is dangerous. A gallon of water is dangerous. Politician are dangerous (the dictator governors of five states democide murdered more people than did 911 terrorists).
"I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." Thomas Jefferson
That idiot governor pritzker in Illinois needs to be abolished
Riddle me this Robin: Since Caetano v Massachusetts recognized that 200,000 stun guns met the “in common use” criteria; does that not throw the door completely open if NFA regulated firearms are possessed in numbers greater than 200,000? For example the AFT’s reclassification of pistols with stabilizing braces as being SBRs. The estimated number is 40 million. Don’t they now qualify as being in common use thereby beyond the NFA’s regulatory authority? I venture to estimate that suppressors and machine guns each exceed 200,000 held by private citizens! Hasn’t the AFT over expanded their authority to the point that they now lack jurisdiction? Mull that over!
More like "When judges are paid off"!!!!!
The 9th circuit has been at it for years.
And when "we" call firearms dangerous we should specify POTENTIALLY dangerous. My stored firearms as they are right now present no danger to anyone. Regardless of the type, design, caliber or capacity. It is only with intent or action from USER they they might pose a danger. The the same thing can be said of my vehicles, my cleaning supplies or even my carpentry tools. Let's start talking about potential or perceived danger versus actual danger.
Particularly dangerous. Important distinction there. I don't think people are generally advocating for general ownership of miniguns, surface to air missiles, or nukes.
Judge Karen
US v Miller was a sham…. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. And the court remanded the case to the District court for further proceedings, which never happened.
Bad jurisprudence
The fix – stop talking about "Constitutional Rights" and start acting on them. Until that happens, embrace the suck – even from the "good" guys.
When judges make decisions that side with arbitrary rules they are operating in poor conduct and should be immediately removed.
IL is a fascist state, and this Judge is completely wrong acting from ideology and not by the rule of law.
She just means , space guns
Judge needs to be removed from the bench he is violating the Constitution overreach from the government and overreach from the court and the charger who is probably a liberal judge who doesn't care about the conversation or the Bill of Rights
Let me ask you this? As a Marine Corps Veteran that trained in hand to hand combat and weapons training does that mean I'm banned?
She is looney tunes, should be disbarred as willfully disregarding the US constitution, No right of the government exists to limit commonly used firearms. You are voided and moot.
Hate to nit pic but you stated that weapons are "designed to be dangerous". I believe that is incorrect. Weapons are designed to be safe to the user and their purpose. Purpose is determined by the end user. Don't get me wrong I understand what you meant. I think I am writing because ATF and the assholes who have written the words "designed or redesigned etc" which is bullshit. Same crap about the brace designed to be strapped to arm and that it is redesigned if a person doesn't use it as the original designers vision was. All bullshit. Face it I know you are a lawyer but the ridiculousness of making definitions and changing them to suit the day of the week. Really? Hey tell me what the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is and how it could connect to lets say…………..a politician who is taking money as The Big Guy, allowing an invasion of our borders, putting and paying for a foreign country (lets say Ukraine) to be put ahead of people he swore to represent, obstructs and impairs foreign investigations through the use of US tax dollars and also swears he will do everything in his power to NOT uphold the US Constitution? What would be the practical and real application, not bullshit? Bet you won't LMAO.
Very good information
Judges who don't follow the constitution should be removed from the bench and forfeit all pension and money's accumulated during tenure……gun groups should start suing them personally….
I am so happy to have found your page. Keep up the great work.
The problem is we have judges and elected officials that are dangerous and unusual ! WAKE UP PEOPLE
There are so few unusual weapons out there when one is a firearm enthusiast. Many people that are ignorant to types of firearms or is not a collector may be unaware of how common most firearms are.
What is the text, history, and tradition that bars felons from self defense by banning their ownership of firearms?
Justice Kendall does an outstanding job of highlighting the dangers of activist judges burrowing their way into our legal system to undermine the very document that they took an oath to uphold.
I wonder what her honor's thoughts on the right to self defense would be were she to find herself being accosted by armed criminals.
These anti-American judges need to be kicked out of office.
I have to stop you right there. We do not have a rich tradition of regulation for something that is dangerous and unusual. We have a statement made on a flawed interpretation of a single passage from a book where the rest of the passage that narrowed it to an affray was neglected. Even with that, it was decided that is MAY be possible to regulate something that is dangerous and unusual. That does not make for a rich history of such regulation. And it has been decided that banning a class of weapon is not allowed. Banning is not regulation. This is not designed to be trollish or angry in any way. I like your content, but that piece is a big contention for me, and it is my understanding that the supreme court knows about this discrepeancy. I am hoping that they plan to address it at some point, though I imagine they are waiting for the right case to do it on. Also, this judge makes me literally feel ill that feelings are more important to someone in such a position than the law that is the backbone of our country.
And another judge that needs to be disbarred
All weapons are inherently dangerous what a joke we really need to clean up who we let become judges.
What a joke! This judge has been struck down two other times for her irrational judgments.
Since I am NOT a member of any bar association, I can say with confidence that this judge is full if 5h_!t. She will likely be overturned on appeal and become professionally embarrassed for not understanding the superior law of the land.
I live in Illinois and make guns for a living since I've never broken a law in my long life. Now, I can't even buy the guns I make in this state. What fuking sense does that make?
Comment on the "bar" and watching what you say.. Great organization that uses threats of coercion to keeping your mouth shut when Judges do this egregious reinterpreting law to support knowing ly unconstitutional precedent and that is no different that CCP and other tyrannical gov. when the courts support the "party" so the "party" can send goon squads to do as they want.
I would think 2A supporting lawyers could enmass show up to public comments on challenging the law before its law how its UC? You'd think reminding them and their oath and then going down a litany of how UC their proposed law is, line item by line item.
Is it the bar preventing attorney's from that?
A firearm is not dangerous in and of itself likewise a car is not dangerous in and of itself it takes a person being stupid Reckless or intentionally and criminally acting with either one of those a firearm is only dangerous if it blows up when you shoot it and is common amongst that particular model or brand of firearm
Ok so here's a suggestion…instead of playing along with their stupid fuckin' games maybe everyone should just stand their ground and refuse to comply. ????
1791
When judges materially support depots. Be an active accessory to unconstitutional laws. This person is useing their judgeship to deny people thier God given rights.
My biggest concern is the speed that unconstitutional laws are passed in comparison to the lengthy process of having to get them overturned in multiple courts. New York is a classic example of this. Based on the momentum of combat the 2A is losing the battle. If this is not resolved soon the reason for the 2A will eventually become evident as our founding fathers intended, and that is to protect against tyranny.
Jury Nullification.
RMS by themselves are not dangerous. It is the outward use by individuals for the purposes of defence that makes them dangerous.
Unusual will need to be decided at some point.
Regulation, as employed by the executive branch, will also need to be addressed soon as it shirks the fiduciary duty of Congress with regard to their power to legislate.
That’s why it’s so important to know all about the 2nd amendment rights for us to justify the importance of firearms as a means of protection and self defense
OTHER BIG THING IS MOST COPS AND MILITARY WILL NO VIOLATE 2A THEY SWORE AN OATH TO PROTECT
DISBAR BITCH
Can't call a judge actively going against the constitution honorable. She needs to have her position revoked. It sucks because seeing coverage of scary mary online, her approach to dealing with repeat offenders is phenomenal. However, when you're actively twisting words of higher courts to fit your agenda you don't deserve to be in position.
thx
when the teacher calls on you for the first discussion question but you didnt do the reading so you just give your opinion while glazing over the reading….
If you can get David Thompson, the lawyer whose firm commenced NYSRPA v. Bruen on, the guy is outstanding!
There sure is a lot of judges that really need to be disbarred.
She should ban frying pans and hammers.
Out-of-control government is definitely dangerous,and definitely NOT unusual!
The inferior court Judge Kendall will be kicking and screaming as she is dragged from the courtroom after she hsas been removed from the bench for providing the Supreme Court the decision that will allow them to put to rest all infringements on the Second Amendment.