Supreme Court Paul Clement NYSRPA v. Bruen
This artist sketch depicts Paul Clement standing while arguing before the Supreme Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2021, in Washington. (Dana Verkouteren via AP)
Previous Post
Next Post

When the US Supreme Court handed down the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, it was met with no shortage of resistance among those who favored segregation of America’s schools and other public accommodations.  It took a couple of years before judges across America realized that they couldn’t side-step the ruling despite the pleas of bigots and indeed, a few racists.

Today, seventy years later, we see a similar reluctance of quite a few federal court judges to accept their roles as inferior courts. Judges twist themselves into rhetorical pretzels to come up with rulings that clearly run afoul of both the Heller decision from 2008 as well as the Bruen decision in 2022 that indicated that government cannot regulate or ban guns in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense.

Two more decisions handed down in recent days have continued the trend of throwing unconstitutional gun control schemes into the dustbin of history.

California’s Ammo Background Checks Stuck Down… again.
As noted earlier on TTAG, Judge Roger Benitez, known affectionately as St. Benitez to gun rights advocates, struck down California’s law that required background checks to buy ammunition. If you guessed there was no historical precedent of the state running a background check prior to purchasing ammo in the 1790s, you’re a smart cookie.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association had a great press release on their big win in front of Judge Benitez:

California gun owners got great news today when Judge Roger Benitez announced he is upholding CRPA’s challenges in Rhode v. Bonta. This case seeks to overturn the state’s restrictions on ammunition purchases.

Rhode v. Bonta (challenging ammunition restrictions) has worked its way up and down the court system for eight years. Along with Duncan v. Bonta, these cases were both at the Ninth Circuit level last year, awaiting the much anticipated Bruen decision by the Supreme Court. Once that decision came down, Rhode and Duncan were both remanded back to the lower courts for supplemental briefing. Our friends at Ammunition Depot joined with CRPA and other individual and company plaintiffs to support this case through all of the legal twists and turns.

Named plaintiff and Olympic champion Kim Rhode celebrated the announcement: “Like I initially stated to Gavin Newsom, “always happy to teach you about the guns and ammo you don’t trust me to own.” I’m happy that the courts agreed with me. Many generations of hunters, outdoorsmen and Olympians will be able to train and pass on the shooting heritage for many generations. I will never stop fighting for the 2nd Amendment and what I believe to be right and the court’s ruling supports that.

Both cases were intensely watched by Second Amendment advocates buoyed by the announcement of the Bruen decision last summer.  Today’s ruling, while the state will most certainly appeal them, represent continued progress in rolling back decades of attacks on the rights of lawful gun owners.

Today’s ruling represents continued affirmation that the Bruen decision, and Heller before that, represent a sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws,” stated CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel.  “Sure, the state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution.”

Lead attorney for the Rhode case, Sean Brady of Michel & Associates, noted, “this particular background check system, instituted by California law, was so egregious and over the top that Judge Benitez never faltered in his determinations from his earlier rulings which gave gun owners a win. Today’s ruling reiterates that California’s restrictions on ammunition purchasing are unconstitutional under yet another ruling in our favor and one that is in line with the Supreme Court opinion in Bruen.”

CRPA is proud to stand side by side with plaintiffs like Ammunition DepotSam’s Shooter’s Emporium, and Able Ammo in this major challenge to unconstitutional laws in California. It takes this type of collaboration to bring about big wins for gun owners.

Stay tuned to CRPA News, emails, and social feeds for continued updates as our legal team breaks down the rulings and provides a roadmap for what lies ahead. We will also have more information as Judge Benitez’s decision is analyzed, and we can determine what happens next for these cases and your rights as gun owners.

In the meantime, you can give to cases like these, DONATE, to help us keep the wins coming!  We are NOT DONE YET!

Yes, donate to CRPA to help them continue these fights.

Also, it’s likely the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will attempt to stay this decision in the coming days. But in doing so, they’re merely teeing this up for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the matter once and for all.

Housing Authority Ban Shut Down
In New York State, Judge Glenn Suddaby smacked down a public housing authority gun ban in Cortland, NY in Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority.

Again, there were no widespread bans on keeping firearms in the home in the 1790s for anyone.

Here’s SAF’s press release:

A federal judge in New York has granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of a public housing authority gun ban in Cortland, N.Y. The case is known as Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority.

U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby handed down the 29-page decision, which enjoins the defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys “from, taking any action to enforce, or otherwise require any person or entity to comply with the firearms ban as set forth in the ‘Tenant’s Obligations’” in the standard lease agreement pending final resolution of the case.

SAF is joined by three public housing residents, Elmer Irwin, Doug Merrin and Robert Hunter, the latter for whom them case is named. 

“This is not the first time SAF has litigated a public housing case,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “which have all been about the same thing, a Second Amendment violation. We have won cases in Illinois and Tennessee, and by now, it would seem that public housing authorities should have gotten the message that constitutional rights do not end at the front door. We will continue pursuing such cases as they come to our attention because people do not give up their rights simply because they live in subsidized housing.”

“No public housing authority should be allowed to simply block tenants from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing proposition, not a buffet from which a bureaucracy should be able to pick and choose which rights they find acceptable. We’re delighted with Judge Suddaby’s decision, which is a victory for constitutional rights everywhere.”

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Gun owners need to keep up the pressure on government entities to repeal their gun control schemes or alternatively, take them to court.

Gun control schemes have no more place in American life than does forced segregation of public schools and public accommodations.

Previous Post
Next Post

75 COMMENTS

  1. The biggest resistance to desegregation came from the dems like goerge wallace. Slavery to the point of fighting a war to keep it. The klan. Segregation. Concentration camps for citizens based solely on race. hillary saying they need to put us in camps.

    These people are evil on a level that makes stalin and mao look like beginners. Thney own reparations 100%. The party needs to be dismantled and it assets sold off to cover some of those reparations.

    • Slavery to the point of fighting a war to keep it.

      NOPE. That is not what sparked the war, nor the underlying cause for the conflict.
      Slavery was already on its way out as the industrial revolution was marching along
      The corrupt north were working hard to skew the laws, imposing crippling tariffs in ways that crippled the south and helped or did nothing to them. North set up blockades, captured and sank southern ships, Union troops captured Fort Sumpter in Charleston Harbor, in essence invading a sovereign foreign territory as the Carolinas had chosen to leave the Union just as they had chosen to join. So Southern troops fired upon their own territory to flush out the invaders.
      None of that would have gone down any differently had slavery ended before the secession.

      • to say
        slavery was on its way out ( no actual known time frame can be established) could be ..lets say is true

        THAT in and of itself does not mean that one of the main causes of the civl war was to hasten the end of slavery

        again,,your point is well taken

        • C’Mon Man…As long as there is Gun Control and defenseless people Slavery was never on it’s way out, it simply lies in wait. Do not make light of Slavery.
          As for the background checks for ammo ruling it should include silencers, SBRs and other ridiculous slave master hoops.

      • In the Cornerstone Speech, the vice president of the confederate states of america, Alexander Stevens disagrees with you.

        Because he wrote the reason why they went to war against the north. It was to keep slavery as an institution in the south.

        The big mistake the south made was to use violence at Fort Sumter.

        They could have easily simply blockaded the Fort and starve the union soldiers out. Or they could have just left the union. Since it was a voluntary association. But they were “hot heads.” The Southern power establishment wanted a war.

        • btw
          Ending the “free labor” in the south would have destroyed it financially. So yes they went to war.

          Is there a certain class of people, that is meant to provide the nation with “free labor”???

          Perhaps that is why it has become acceptable to allow illegal aliens, with no formal education. And who are illiterate in their own language of spanish, to come to the United States.

      • Tionico, What? For your continued education Fort Sumpter was built in 1829. See this: These forts are collectively known as the Third System of Seacoast Defense. Charleston Harbor made the list of sites vulnerable to attack, prompting the construction of Fort Sumter. Construction on the man-made island began in 1829. Thirty-one years later, sectional tensions exploded at Fort Sumter into armed conflict.

        Tell me, JUST HOW was the North “corrupt”? The tariffs were NOT set up to punish the South but to protect US producers and manufacturing. Somehow you are twisting history.

        Yes, the “North” (some people in the North) vehemently opposed slavery. They considered it (and rightly so) barbaric. Yes, much of the South’s economy depended on slavery. The fact is that the Civil War was fought over a myriad is reasons but most of them hinged in slavery. The South perceived that if Lincoln won (which he did) win the White House, he would move to abolish slavery. While Lincoln opposed slavery, he did not have any intention to abolishing slavery.

        • Hi Walter: While your statement about tariffs is technically correct, the fact is the all of the manufacturing being protected was in the North, and the tariffs were going to be paid mostly by the south, since they relied far more heavily on imports than the North. So the IMPACT of the tariff was NOT equal. There is a famous French saying that, in translation, asks “Is a law fair and equal that forbids all people, rich or poor, from begging on the streets and sleeping under bridges.” Just because a law or a tax applies to everyone does not mean that it affects everyone equally.

        • Gerry, so? There are a lot of people who think that protecting US manufacturing is an important issue and is the obligation of the Federal Govt. Tariffs between state is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and was not ever done. However, what prevented the South from buying Northern goods? If the South depended more on other countries imports of products already made in America, they they should have bought US products.

        • Hi Walter: The role of government in “picking winners” (subsidizing certain industries) is controversial, especially because it almost always involves political corruption. In some cases, such as defense manufacturing, specifically subsidizing that industry is necessary, for national security. But generally, the cost of subsidizing an industry should be broadly based, not robbed from one other industry.
          The right of government to tax (including import taxes-Tariffs) has legal and traditional limitations. One such limitation is that a tax should not burden one geographic part of the nation, at the expense of another part.
          But the idea of taxing one industry (cotton growing in the South) for the benefit of another industry (textile manufacturing in the North), is improper.

          Basically, and perhaps somewhat simplistically, the import tariff raised the price of imported textiles so that USAers couldn’t afford them. So USEers had to buy their essential textiles from the New England manufacturers. It is the nature of modern manufacturing that textiles manufactures could manage their production to maximize profit. On the other hand, cotton farmers had to sell their cotton as it is picked, at whatever price they can get, namely low. So the effect of the tariff was to make New Englanders rich and to crush the South. That happened because the North controlled Congress. The US Constitution was designed to prevent that abuse, but the Northern politicians, being Harvard educated, figured out how to outsmart the system to their industrial patrons’ benefit. This sort of abuse led directly to the Civil War, and many of the problems we are burden with, even today.

        • Gerry, the whole idea of tariffs is to PROTECT American manufacturers. It is not “geared” specifically toward on section of the country over the other. So it raised the cost to the consumer for imported textiles. That is the PURPOSE of the tariff. You are going to have to expound on how taxing imports hurt the cotton growers in the south? If anything, it should have HELPED them to sell their cotton. If someone prefered the imported textile over American, then to protect the American manufacturer, the purpose of the tariff is fulfilled. I don’t see any “abuse”,
          What lead to the Civil War was Slavery and States’ Rights. If tariffs were a cause, it was WAY down the list.

        • Hi Walter:
          YOU SAID:
          the whole idea of tariffs is to PROTECT American manufacturers. It is not “geared” specifically toward on section of the country over the other.
          MY REPLY:
          While your statement is true in theory, the fact is that the North, and more specifically, Massachusetts and RI, was already the center of manufacturing in the USA. They didn’t need any government manipulation to continue their profitability. The South, on the other hand did not have the infrastructure, nor the capitalization structures nor the skilled workforce, nor the near nature resources to ever compete with the North in manufacturing. The south was stuck with a seasonal and somewhat perishable product (cotton) that was very subject to the whims of the market. The Northerners could keep the price of cotton low, and because of the tariff, could charge a premium for their finished product. So, contrary to your statement, the North benefited from the tariff, and the South was devastated by it. There
          have been occasion in history in which government subsidies had unintended consequences, but this was not such a case. Everyone knew what would happen, but the North, and particularly the northern textile barons, had more votes in Congress. The South was well aware that they had been betrayed.

          YOU SAID: So it raised the cost to the consumer for imported textiles. That is the PURPOSE of the tariff.

          I SAY: The purpose of the tariff was to raise money for the federal government since the Feds had few other sources of income. The feds were not granted the other burdensome taxes (esp. Income tax) until much later. The idea of government subsidizing infant industries with tariffs did not become fashionable until much later, when macro economics became a thing. The fashionable way to subsidize an industry was to grant “patents” (monopolies) to the King’s favorites. And we put that more focused idea into our Constitution, as the legal way to subsidize an industry.

          The idea of using tariffs to “encourage” an industry is an idea that really only works in modern economies. Traditionally, the only people who could afford imported goods were the royalty and nobles. Poor people lived on what they could grow or make. So taxing imports would only come from the King and his nobles, and that was generally not allowed. NO, the tariff was imposed to fund the federal government, pure and simple.

          YOU SAID:
          You are going to have to expound on how taxing imports hurt the cotton growers in the south? If anything, it should have HELPED them to sell their cotton. If someone preferred the imported textile over American, then to protect the American manufacturer, the purpose of the tariff is fulfilled. I don’t see any “abuse”,

          I REPLY:
          While you are correct that the tariffs did allow the price of native textiles to go up, the benefit went mostly to the manufacturers, because of the concept of market elasticity. Because textile manufacturing is year around, and the market for the is products is year around, and textiles have no spoilation, the textile manufactures could manage the pricing to maximize profit, and few textile manufactures could take full advantage of this power, including using it against the growers, in various then legal ways, like buying conspiracies.

          On the other hand, the growers had no such power to control the sale price of cotton. The whole national crop comes in at the same time, and starts to degrade immediately.

          And the thousand so of farmers were competing with each other to keep the prices low. So the increase in the coat of imported goods was NO benefit to the cotton farmers, and increase the coat they had to pay for fabric goods, e.g. clothing and home-goods.

          YOU SAID:
          in retrospect, there is no evidence that secondary effect was the reason for the tariffs.

          I REPLY: It of often the case that criminals do not leave written manifestos expressing their motivations. So society must judge them by the likely consequences of their actions. And Southern newspaper and diaries make it clear that, at least the Southerns knew what the consequences of the tariffs would be, and were.

          YOU SAID:
          What lead to the Civil War was Slavery and States’ Rights. If tariffs were a cause, it was WAY down the list.

          It is said the history is written by the victors, and victors seldom admit to their evil. They instead attribute their vicious acts to some high minded ideal that had nothing to do with their real intentions.

          While slavery was a major issue among a small group Northern intellectuals, mostly female who couldn’t vote yet, the vast majority of northerners had no interest in it whatsoever. In fact there were slaves in the North. One need only consider the hellish working conditions in Northern textile mills for free people and children, to confirm that the real reason for starting the Civil war was much more sinister. Lincoln made it clear that he had no intention of freeing the slaves. He only did it, late in the war, to encourage slaves to leave their plantations, so that Southern soldies would ahve to return to their farms, to keep their families from starving.

          The fact that the 13th amendment was only passed, AFTER the war, was because the Southerners were not allowed to vote. That proves my point. The reason for the Civil War was to keep the South from gaining control of, or at least veto power over, Congress.

          Ft. Sumter was within South Carolina’s territorial waters. It was being built, was not finished, had no weapons yet, and had no troops, when South Carolina succeeded. Six days after NC succeeded, an small group of Union soldiers, without any orders that have been found (suspicious), moved into the indefensible, unfinished fort. Having been a military officer, I offer my opinion that this was a thinly veiled attempt to provoke an incident, successful, as it tuned out. The South fired on the intruders when they would not leave, the Union troops left without any casualties, and the Union had an excuse to cause a war. The fact there was no written record of who authorized this Union incursion into NC, is strong evidence that is was a ruse intended to provoke a war. The US Army was and still is very, let’s say, careful, to preserve this sort of document. The fact that the orders disappeared, strongly suggests that someone want to escape being blamed.
          I apologize if this commentary is somewhat stern. I would normally revise the narrative to tone it down a bit. But I have run out of time.
          But I believe that the South did not start the war. They simply realized that the limited union that they had voluntarily joined, was a scam, they had been defrauded, and they wanted out. The really interesting question is why the Union didn’t just let them go ? The south was never a real threat to the Union States. The south had no practical way to ever manufacture weapons, especially artillery, and not enough people to ever really invade or conquer the Union States. The fact is the Union States wanted to keep a captive source of cheap raw materials, and keep a captive market for Union manufactured goods. It confirms the ancient wisdom that, “When someone tells you it’s the principle, not the money, … you know its the money.

        • Gerry, I have to say a big so what to your theories. If the South wanted to have “capitalization” for industry, then they should have invested the profits from cotton and slavery to industrialize. The fact is they didn’t. They wanted to continue their way of life, come what may. The fact is they wished to continue the abomination of slavery and used the excuse of “states’ rights” as their defense for secession. Fort Sumter was in the territorial waters of the United States of America. The Federal Government had every right to build that fort in 1826 as they did and to maintain it. The “right of secession” has been decided by the outcome of the Civil War. Your arguments are at best moot.
          The South most certainly did start the war when they a) seceded from the Union without any form of due process and b) fired on Fort Sumter. Their intent to start the war is clear. While I laud the heroism of the Southern forces, they fought a losing battle from day one. Their idea was to try to force a solution by attrition. It did not work.

    • Jared Polis, the proud hom0 sexual governor of Colorado. Is the updated 21st contury version of Alabama governor George Wallace.

      And Polis is as popular as Wallace was back in his day. The atheists and h0mosexu@ls will continue to support Polis. Just as Wallace had his supporters.

      Both are racists. One white homo sexu@l. And one white hetero sexu@l.

    • Jared Polis, the proud h0 m0 sexu@l governor of Colorado. Is the updated 21st contury version of Alabama governor George Wallace.

      And Polis is as popular as Wallace was back in his day. The @theists and h0 m0 sexu@ls will continue to support Polis. Just as Wallace had his supporters.

      Both are r@cists. One white h0 m0 sexu@l. And one white heter0 sexu@l.

      • doesnt matter ifff its allowed

        the left wins no matter what

        they have the schools the msm the business etc etc

        until those are taken back from the regime we are sunk

    • “…Biden admin proposal that effectively bans private gun sales: report…”

      We had better throw everything we have to fighting that, it’s the only way to ensure that the government can never know who owns what.

      The government must always be afraid of pissing off the people, not the other way around…

    • Or yard or in the public square.

      Has the moronic BS ban on ammunition types or materials (as lead) also been thrown out?

    • I actually used to live in Cortland, NY. Its heyday is pretty far behind it (late 1800’s railroad money, long gone) but I liked living there – unpretentious, located in some pretty country, and nice people. It’s located in Cortland County, which was my CCW issuing county – much less rabidly anti-2A than many other NY counties, and far better than neighboring Tompkins County, which is a cesspool of authoritarian leftism. This is a good win for NY. Congrats!

  2. The State of California has already filed a notice of appeal and a request for a stay pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit “to preserve the status quo.” Deceptively, the State argues that these ammo laws are “long standing,” ignoring that they were enacted in 2019. And as usual, the State castigates Judge Benitez for “misapplying” Bruen and prior Supreme Court cases that imply that some restrictions on guns and ammo may be permissible.
    I put my order in last night for some .357 mag (something I haven’t been able to obtain in these parts of late) before the Ninth puts a stop to the injunction. And then we wait. And wait. And wait. The Ninth knows that its anti-gun days are numbered, and appears intent on making it difficult for litigants to take their case to SCOTUS, perhaps hoping and praying that another Biden presidency will manage to “rebalance” the Court.

    • Agreed. CA (Becerra, Bonta, future AGs) will use all pages in the playbook to obfuscate and delay. In the meantime, I myself have finally been able to get through to retailers (plural) and places orders (plural). In two instances, items I chose were in stock at the time of selection, but gone by the time I went to checkout. Ammo’s getting snapped up…let’s remember that 1 out of every 9 (legal citizen) Americans is a Californian, so the floodgates of “take my money!” orders have been opened.

      The advice during 2019’s Freedom Week was to buy as many mags as you could afford, because the window could close. It did indeed close, and here we are almost five years later with CA still dragging its feet on complying with Benitez’ two rulings. Same advice applies now because ammo is a full consumable (once it’s used, it’s gone), and while 1000 rds seems like a lot to non-POTG like the media puppets and blue-haired Karens, that quantity is easily used up after only three typical trips to the range. The irony is that the Leftist elites tell us only well-trained people should be trusted with guns, but then balk at the thought of private citizens actually training regularly, which requires a lot of ammo.

      • My wife, who is not a fan of guns, was astonished when I told her that 1000 rounds or so (often described in the press as some massive amount of ammunition or some such) was really nothing, because you could use that up with a few trips to the range.

      • “…let’s remember that 1 out of every 9 (legal citizen) Americans is a Californian, so the floodgates of “take my money!” orders have been opened.”

        For those with the money to spare, picking up a few new-in-the-box guns now may be a wise decision should the ‘Rahimi’ case end up meaning non-violent felons get their 2A rights restored.

        If that happens, potentially tens of millions of newly-eligible gun buyers will be in the market for a gat (or3). What a time to cash in on the rush… 😉

      • {Ammo}

        “…Same advice applies now because ammo is a full consumable (once it’s used, it’s gone)”

        Not completely, the brass is reloadable, and if bad things happen, will be critical to keeping existing guns operational. The venerable .38 SPL was originally a black-powder cartridge. Yes, gun cleaning will be critical if modern guns fire black powder, but it will be an option. Lead from car batteries for projectiles, primers can be re-activated with care, etc…

      • Whenever this makes it to SCOTUS, and they put their majority collective foot down, and the law goes away, and you folks clean off the shelves, I’ll be ok with ammo likely being expensive and hard to find for awhile. I’m speaking for myself here. Some rights will be restored, which is an excellent outcome, and the market will eventually balance out. A like flood of east coast purchases will trigger another shortage, unless it happens at the same time as west coast, and I’ll be ok with that too. So, get it while the getting’s good!

    • Mark N.,

      Deceptively, the State argues that these ammo laws are ‘long standing,’ ignoring that they were enacted in 2019.

      Au contraire mon ami! California enacted that law over 1,700 days ago–if that doesn’t qualify as “long standing”, I don’t know what does!

      (In case it isn’t obvious, this comment is pure sarcasm.)

  3. Even Supreme Court “wins” regarding firearms are not actually victories. A lawsuit that spends 8yrs in queue is not a “win”, either. The social contract in place in 1954 was that SC rulings were accepted among the public, and lower courts. Brown v. Board was an aberration that set the example of defying the SC (moreso than the comment by President Jackson). Then things reverted to “normalcy”. Today, being zero means for the SC to discipline courts and legislatures, we see what happens when the social contract is simply repealed through disrespect and mob approval of defiance.

    • Sam,

      Serious (speculative) question. What do you think the result would be (mostly legally, but also in the press) if SCOTUS just took a 9th Circus idiot, anti-gun, unconstitutional ruling, and issued a short, succint ruling:

      “We already told you, several times, what the Constitution says, and how that affects what the Federal government or states are permitted to do. You’ve obviously decided to ignore us. Good luck with that. From now on, any 2A ruling, from ANY circuit court of appeals, which ignores our precedent will be overturned, without hearing, and sent back with instructions to rule in accordance with our precedent.”

      Then, of course, they would have to actually DO that, but that ain’t gonna happen. Still, the Leftist/fascists are USING the system, without regard to law or precedent. Like MajorLiar, the narrative is all important; the rule of law, or the actual Constitution, be damned.

      • Oh, and . . . PARTICULARLY in Federal appellate proceeding, “the process IS the punishment”. Getting from trial court to appellate court, to SCOTUS is a DECADE-long process, costing (at a minimum) hundreds of thousands of dollars, with no real hope of recouping the expenditure).

        Yeah, the process IS the punishment.

        • “Oh, and . . . PARTICULARLY in Federal appellate proceeding, “the process IS the punishment”. ”

          Indicating, perhaps, that our court system is vastly under-staffed.

        • Sam,

          Or, perhaps, just speaking as a former lawyer . . . out legal system is overstaffed with ambulance-chasers and rent-seekers and “judges” who view themselves as superlegislators?? Mebbe??

          You may or may not be aware, but . . . depending on the state, up to 95% of all civil lawsuits (state or federal (and YES, there ARE Federal civil lawsuits) are settled before trial. The name of the game in modern litigation (since the American system doesn’t usually provide for an award of legal fees for the prevailing party) is “sue and settle”. And many businesses do settle, because? It’s cheaper than litigating.

          I had one client that really “got it”. He was Chairman of the Board and CEO of a small (but growing wildly) manufacturing and retail company. I regularly attended their Board meetings (like all growing companies, legal issues/questions frequently came up). One meeting the agenda included discussion of a pending lawsuit for wrongful termination, discrimination, etc. The plaintiff claimed he was a star employee, but was fired because the company found out he was gay.

          The Board debated it, and most of the directors (I had strongly counseled the company to recruit a majority of “outside” directors, and they had) were in favor of settling it (if I recall correctly, their labor/employment lawyer told them he could settle it for $50K, and that it would cost well over $100K to defend, and I concurred with his judgement about the cost).

          My client listened to the discussion (getting increasingly angry), slammed his hand down on the table, and said, “No way! I didn’t even KNOW the sonofabitch was gay, and I couldn’t give a shit either way! I fired him because he was an incompetent punk, and couldn’t do the job! I’ll spend $100,000k, if that’s what it takes, but we will NOT be a piggy bank for liars!”

          They fought it, got the suit dismissed with prejudice. And it cost them about $35K to fight it. Chaser? They fought the next two bullshit lawsuits (like I said, they were growing like crazy), and guess what? The bullshit lawsuits dried up.

          No, Sam, our “justice system” suffers from MANY things, but lack of staffing AIN’T one of them!!!

      • “We already told you, several times, what the Constitution says, and how that affects what the Federal government or states are permitted to do. You’ve obviously decided to ignore us. Good luck with that. From now on, any 2A ruling, from ANY circuit court of appeals, which ignores our precedent will be overturned, without hearing, and sent back with instructions to rule in accordance with our precedent.”

        With no enforcement “teeth” all SC rulings become SC rulings, ignorable as any of the others. As to “Bruen”, “We already told you” happened, to no avail. A series of “We already told you” would result in defiance, delay, obfuscation, replication.

        “Tension, Apprehension, and Dissension have begun”.

        • Sam,

          I certainly agree about the response to Bruen (c.f., NY, NJ, CA, MA, HI, etc.), and I agree that there is an element of truth to the old (apocryphal) story about Andrew Jackson saying of SCOTUS, “Mr. Marshall has made is decision; now let him enforce it.”

          But, to the extent that I have a beef with Bruen (and I have several), my biggest beef is that it was, in most respects, a very milquetoast ruling. And this is AFTER the states had been thumbing their noses at Heller.

          While SCOTUS does not have a SWAT squad (Why not?? Every OTHER damn federal agency does!), and goes out of its way to maintain the whole “professional and collegial and scholarly” BS, there is a benefit (I think) to being straight to the point.

          The logic and the law were amply laid out in Heller and Bruen, and further attempts by states to circumvent them are simply a combination of “we’re going to stick a thumb in your eye” combined with “we can’t change your ruling, or the law, but we can play lawfare on the backs of our taxpayers”. Screw ’em. Tell them straight out that they are being lawless idiots, and you won’t tolerate it anymore, and all their silly, unconstitutional laws are going to get slam-dunked into the weeds.

          Enough already with chowderheads like Whitmer, and Newsom, and Hochul playing stupid-@$$ games (at GREAT expense to the taxpayers!). Save the money of hearings, lawyers, etc. for legal issues that are settled, and send them back home.

  4. Two more decisions handed down, two more rulings that will be totally ignored by the left…
    I can’t even do my ” shocked face” anymore.

    • Not really. Different circuit different rules until they have a split decision. Can be used as an argument later if it’s a favorable one but we didn’t have standing to challenge the ammo checks in NY till last year so that challenge is just getting started in comparison.

      • SAFE, true to a point, but, as upholding the ban would be a precedent which would undoubtedly be in conflict with the decision we both know the 2nd Circuit will render. That being said, the Supreme Court usually accepts cases when the decision of different Circuits conflict.

        • And given the pace of case progression for the 9th and 2nd re 2nd amendment cases it will be years before we get anything like a circuit split barring some wild unexpected events so for probably the rest of the decade this decision in California means nothing besides a good sign of things to come for us in NY. Up end assault weapons and carry locations are getting closer.

        • SAFE, we already have it. If I recall correctly there is a decision which said that the kind of laws that NY and Commiefornia have are unconstitutional, i.e.: in conflict with the 9th Circuit.

        • Going to have to point that one out as only district decisions pending hearings or decisions at circuit level come to mind. Would be awesome to be wrong as that would shave years off what I am looking forward to.

        • SAFE, the 2nd Circuit already reversed a Federal District Court’s Injunction re Hochul’s ammo nonsense.

        • District level injunction that got reversed at circuit level while district level case continues somewhere back in December? If so still year(s) out for a circuit appeal hearing let alone a decision unless the current pace changes (entirely possible with the more advanced challenges pending).

        • It was the 2nd Circuit that reversed the Injunction. A Circuit Appeals Court is one step below the Supreme Court. A decision in the matter could be had within a year.

        • Injunction got kicked back to district this not in circuit yet. Similar to how several California cases were remanded back to their district level hearings (like this one) we have a while for ammo, less or assault weapons, and substantially less for misc carry issues as far as likely wait times.

  5. @SGAMMO home page – Attention Californians: We are aware of the recent ruling and are looking into the details, but due to sales tax issues we will not be able to ship to California until March 1st at the soonest, assuming nothing changes…

    How many months do you supposed the communists in Ca state gov can delay issue of a state sales tax permit?

  6. Imagine if you had to forfeit your voting rights to accept housing assistance…

  7. Where do I go for my background check to vote? Oh, I forgot that I don’t even have to be a citizen or alive for my vote to count. Sounds ridiculous, or does it? Just wait until the dems re-up in November and all is lost.

    • Kentaji: “I’m not a biologist…”

      I’m not a veterinarian, but I can tell the difference between a cat and a dog.

      The very fact that a SC nominee can avoid answering one of the most basic questions in life due to personal political reasons – and still be appointed to the High Court! – is a sad state of affairs in our nation today.

    • Hmm. Moderated again. And (once again) I have no idea what in the world in my comment could possibly have triggered the WordPress gods to hold it for scrutiny. It’s getting to the point where the only safe words to use will be “Yup”, “Nope”, and “Ditto”.

      I’m going to take a break from TTAG for a few days. Not worth the aggravation.

  8. Thank Mr John Boch. The “gun community” needs to understand that this battle, is exactly what was going on in the 1950s.
    States like california and New York State are in rebellion against the federal government.

    And you don’t need to be using arms to be in rebellion, against the federal government.

    And sending federal troops into California or New York. Like they did at Little Rock Arkansas, is not going to solve this problem.

  9. Creating unconstitutional laws must have consequences. They are already in the books, but oh well, the .gov doesn’t enforce laws against itself.

    18 U.S.C. § 242 deprivation of rights under color of law

  10. I remember the arguments back in the 1980s and 1990s. When all of them the libertarians liberals and the left. Made the argument that by accepting federal housing, you had to accept losing your civil rights. When it came to keeping and bearing arms.

    Since the federal government was giving you a place to live , they had the right to set the rules. That was the widespread thinking of the smartest people in the room back in the day.

    What’s interesting is those same supporters of this policy? The libertarians liberals and the left “had a fit”. When the federal government tried to limit the 1st amendment rights of public housing residents.

    Now, that rule that they were willing to accept. Giving up the 2nd amendment for “free” government housing. Now suddenly they want the residents to have 1st Amendment rights.

    They’re ok with public housing residence speaking out against the government.

    But they are very uncomfortable with public housing residents, taking up arms against a tyrannical government.

  11. I think the bigger issue we need to deal with is the politicians who pass laws they know are unconstitutional. This is nothing but a tactic to delay and drain the resources of the various complainants while they litigate off of taxpayer money. There should be a law that limits the amount of taxpayer money that can be spent on challenges to these types of laws that can be spent by Government. Once they spend the capped amount they have to find other legal sources of revenue to continue. No more of using the deep pockets of the taxpayers to play their frivolous games.

    • @dprato,
      IT IS OUR MONEY!!!
      We should be able to use it, to pay for private legal advocates, to fight the tyranny.
      They lavish on Illegal Fence Jumpers, but deny it to Citizens.
      LeftHards already control the opposition that we pay for.
      It’s now a simple choice for us…
      Heads THEY WIN, Tails WE LOSE.
      How much fairer than that can we expect from these sleazeweasles?

    • dprato, I have said it repeatedly, gun owners who are wronged by these UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws should sue each and every lawmaker in Federal Court for Contempt of the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions. If we get judgements against these bums and they have to pay as individuals, it will send a message. To those who say the “state would pay”, nope. When a government official knowingly acts in a manner which is contrary to the Constitution, he is PERSONALLY liable. It’s called “outside the scope of duties” theory.

  12. @Lamp
    “No, Sam, our “justice system” suffers from MANY things, but lack of staffing AIN’T one of them!!!”

    What explains the length of time needed to get some important cases to trial, and through the appellate process? Not lack of judges and clerks?

Comments are closed.