|
|
MI: Michigan judge charged after gun was found in her purse at Detroit Metro Airport
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Wayne County Judge Cylenthia LaToye Miller was cited earlier this month on a charge of possessing a dangerous weapon after she allegedly tried to pass through airport security with a handgun in her purse. According to Fox 2 Detroit, airport security detected a .380 handgun in Miller’s purse during an X-ray scan.
A police report said the gun was “not artfully concealed” in the purse and the gun’s serial number was hard to read. Miller allegedly told police the gun was given to her by her brother and she hadn’t had a chance to register it yet.
While it is not illegal to travel with a handgun, passengers must pack the unloaded weapon in checked baggage, away from ammunition and in a hardback case. |
FL: DeSantis signs law allowing Floridians to shoot and kill bears in self-defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday signed a controversial bill allowing people to shoot and kill bears in self-defense. The measure sailed through the Republican-led Senate in a 24-12 vote in February.
The law, which takes effect July 1, allows killing bears if a person “reasonably believed” it was necessary to avoid death or serious injury to themselves, other people or family pets, as well as substantial damage to homes, according to the bill language. |
FL: Facebook Marketplace Meetup for $5k Bracelet Ends in Self-Defense Shooting
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On June 15, 2024, at approximately 8:24 PM, deputies from the Lee County Sheriff’s Office responded to reports of gunfire involving a lifted Toyota pickup in the area of 4325 4th Street West. The incident stemmed from an attempted robbery during a Facebook Marketplace transaction and resulted in the arrest of 18-year-old Jaylon Shaw.
The victim, who was selling a $5,500 gold bracelet through Facebook Marketplace, had arranged to meet the buyer at the provided address. When the victim and his wife arrived, Shaw forcefully grabbed the bracelet, placing the victim in fear for his safety. In response, the victim fired his pistol in self-defense.
|
IL: Juvenile Arrested in Shooting Deemed Self-Defense, Still Faces Firearm Charges as Adult Victim Succumbs to Injuries
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On the night of June 16, at approximately 11:36 p.m., officers responded to reports of a shooting. Upon arrival, they found an adult male with gunshot injuries. The victim was immediately transported to a nearby hospital for treatment.
Detectives from the Major Investigations Division quickly began their investigation. According to their findings, an altercation had broken out between the adult male and a 16-year-old juvenile. During the confrontation, the adult displayed a knife, prompting the juvenile to discharge a firearm in self-defense, striking the adult male. |
IL: Chicago Homeowner Cartoon-y Self-Defense…Fights Off Alleged Intruder With Frying Pan
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Jason Williams — a resident of the city’s Logan Square neighborhood — says a security app alerted him to the alleged intruder’s presence while on his way home from work Thursday … and he sprung into action.
When he arrived at his house, Jason explains he grabbed the first weapon he could find … which ended up being a frying pan — and right after, he says the unwelcome guest came down the stairs … and a confrontation ensued.
Ed.: Really looking forward to an attorney citing this in a case about the scope of the word 'arms' in the 2A. |
GOA Reaction: SCOTUS Rules Against Second Amendment in U.S. v. Rahimi
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Today, in a case that had been supported by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), the Supreme Court of the United States frustratingly ruled that individuals deemed by a court to pose a credible threat to the safety of another may be temporarily disarmed.
Justice Thomas was the lone member of the Court to correctly apply the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment in his dissent. |
US Supreme Court upholds law that prevents domestic abusers from owning guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,” Roberts wrote.
Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch advocate of the Second Amendment, was the lone dissent.
Thomas argued that the question before the court was not if someone can have their firearms taken away under the Second Amendment, but instead whether the “Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot.” |
Clarence Thomas is sole dissenter in Supreme Court decision on guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court’s leading conservatives, found himself standing alone when the court handed down a major gun decision Friday.
Thomas broke with his eight colleagues, who all voted to uphold a federal gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders, a decision that handed a win to the Biden administration and gun control groups.
It’s a striking change for Thomas, who authored the Supreme Court’s expanded Second Amendment test two years ago, known as Bruen, that was at the center of Friday’s case. |
SC: Girlfriend of Rock Hill woman killed in shooting now charged with murder in her death
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Police elevated the charges for a Lancaster woman who drove her friend to a confrontation that turned deadly June 19.
Rock Hill police on June 20 charged Brittany Reed, 32, with murder in the death of Samarian Lindsay, 39, of Rock Hill.
Detectives said Reed brought a gun to Lindsay, who brandished it when the two of them stopped Lindsay's co-worker in traffic.
Reed told police "she brought the gun to give to the decedent after being asked to do so knowing it would be used to confront the male," the department wrote in a statement.
Ed.: The male that actually shot Lindsay did so in self-defense, hence the felony murder charge against Reed. |
Supreme Court upholds law banning domestic abusers from having guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, ruling that the measure does not violate the Second Amendment.
The court ruled 8-1 that a person who has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, though five of the justices issued concurring opinions. |
U.S. Supreme Court allows gun restrictions for domestic violence suspects
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In Friday’s ruling, Roberts suggested other courts misunderstood the methodology behind Bruen.
“These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” the chief justice wrote.
Advocates for domestic violence survivors celebrated Friday’s decision and its impact in Texas where firearm access and domestic violence intersect with fatal consequences.
Catch up on criminal justice and courts with our weekly newsletter
|
Supreme Court upholds domestic violence gun restriction
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Erich Pratt, senior vice president at Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group, said that while Rahimi is a "dangerous individual," the ruling "will disarm others who have never actually committed any domestic violence."
Although the vote in Friday's ruling was lopsided, with only conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the ruling nevertheless exposed divisions among the justices on the gun rights issue, with five justices writing separate concurring opinions explaining their views. |
Justices course correct on gun control. Don’t count on it to continue.
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Two years ago, the Supreme Court created predictable havoc with its declaration that gun restrictions could only be justified under the Second Amendment if they were rooted in history and tradition. On Friday, the court cleaned up some of that mess, upholding the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the earlier ruling, dissented.
That’s something to be thankful for, I guess. It was clear from the moment the justices accepted the case — part of the spate of rogue rulings from the out-of-control U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that it is reviewing, and fixing, this term — that Zackey Rahimi would lose |
Some Takeaways from Today's Rahimi Second Amendment Opinions
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A few practical thoughts for future cases:
[1.] The Court solidly accepts (with only Justice Thomas dissenting) that "the Second Amendment permits the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others," at least after a judicial finding of such threat. That judicial finding can be in a civil case, and without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
Supreme Court clarifies when a gun law is constitutional
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
That includes the case at issue Friday, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit threw out the charges against the defendant, Zackey Rahimi.
Friday’s decision was a sharp change for the justices and left the author of the original Bruen decision, Justice Clarence Thomas, as the lone dissenter.
Roberts wrote in the decision that lower courts have “misunderstood” the court’s 2022 decision.
Ed.: I don't have the right adjective on hand, but is is *something* to suggest the author of Bruen misunderstood Bruen, as SCOTUS suggested. |
John Roberts Did a Very Bad Job Cleaning Up the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Mess
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In Rahimi, the Court backed away somewhat from Bruen’s sweeping changes to constitutional law, emphasizing that a modern regulation need not have a historical twin; perhaps it can have a historical sibling or cousin. “Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. He blamed the chaos on lower courts’ interpretation of Bruen rather than Bruen itself, which, he said, was “not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” Rahimi shows that a majority of the Supreme Court realized that it could apply Bruen as written, or it could not embarrass itself by having to stand by Bruen’s batshit consequences, but it could not do both. |
In depth: SCOTUS upholds federal domestic violence gun restriction
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment," the majority concluded.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, saying that while Bruen was wrongly decided, the majority correctly applied the precedent in the present case.
Justice Thomas dissented, saying he disagreed with the majority's conclusion that surety provisions and "going armed" laws were relevantly similar to Section 922(g)(8). |
Ukraine: Meet the Man Pushing for a Ukrainian Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When push comes to shove, this Ukrainian believes, tyrants only understand the language of violence.
“If we had the same gun ownership percentage as the United States does, Russia would never have dared to invade us,” argued Maryan Zablotskiy, who is a member of parliament for Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party.
Zablotskiy is one of the authors of a bill that would create a universal right to firearms for all Ukrainians. In the interim, he has also been asking Americans to send their guns to Ukraine.
His lobbying led to the transfer of hundreds of firearms gathered from sunny Miami and shipped to war torn Ukraine, to aid the police and the Irpin Territorial Defense. |
AZ: Cannabis and the Second Amendment: A Call for Federal Reform
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I deliberately chose not to risk opioid addiction but instead decided to use a very safe plant medicine. This is a direct violation of my Second Amendment rights.
Who do you think is more dangerous? A 60-year-old wannabe grandma who smokes a bowl of legally acquired weed for health purposes, or some drunk yahoo shooting a gun into the air on the Fourth of July?
Or the mass murderers that have legally acquired their firearms? |
Clarence Thomas' New Supreme Court Opinion Sparks Backlash: 'Insane'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is once again facing heat after the conservative jurist on Friday was the lone dissenter in the High Court's ruling in a landmark gun rights case.
Eight of the nine justices on the bench agreed in United States v. Rahimi to uphold a federal statute that bars individuals who are under a domestic violence restraining order from obtaining a firearm. The decision limited the scope of the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which broadly expanded Second Amendment rights. |
WI: Milwaukee Backs Down Under Percived Threat Second Amendment Activism
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the City Council respects activists who are Second Amendment supporters. The admission came when City alder Bob Bauman attempted to ban guns near the scheduled Republican National Convention, in violation of state law and the United States and State of Wisconsin constitutions.
From wisn.com:
Bauman introduced an amendment Friday encouraging the city’s public safety committee to bypass state law and ban guns within the soft perimeter anyway.
“We may be sued. I’m not afraid of being sued,” Bauman told his colleagues.
Bauman knows his proposal is against the law. |
Clarence Thomas: The One-Man Palladium of Our Liberty
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The magnificent character of Justice Clarence Thomas often glints its brightest when he’s in a minority of one, as in his dissent today in the Second Amendment case of United States v. Rahimi. Eight of Justice Thomas’s colleagues agree to deny the right to bear arms to Americans who are subject to restraining orders for domestic violence. Yet on what grounds, the justice asks, can that right — the palladium* of our liberty — be traversed?
We carry no brief for any form of domestic violence. Nor, we are confident, does Justice Thomas. Yet his dissent underscores the fact that owning and carrying a firearm is a liberty possessed by all Americans — even those whose conduct is deplorable. |
Clarence Thomas Criticizes Supreme Court for Misreading His Ruling
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Justice Clarence Thomas criticized his colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court for misreading his ruling in a landmark Second Amendment case.
...
Thomas, who penned the blockbuster opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen two years ago, was the sole dissenter. Thomas said the court's directive was clear after Bruen: "A firearm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment's plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue." |
SAF Statement On Supreme Court’s Rahimi Decision
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Court’s justification in upholding the law by cobbling together bits and pieces of historical laws to find a “historical analogue” may allow future courts to uphold various infringements on the Second Amendment by the same sort of manufacture.
... the unintended consequences of how the Court justified upholding 922(g)(8) may affect the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans if the lower courts adopt a similar approach. This makes it all the more important the Court take any number of other Second Amendment cases at its door, to further clarify that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, fundamental individual right and how to appropriately conduct the analysis Bruen requires. |
FPC Statement On Rahimi Decision By U.S. Supreme Court
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement regarding the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi:
As we explained in our amicus brief, the federal government has no constitutional authority to impose gun control on peaceable individuals at all, let alone the statute at issue in this case. While we disagree with the Court’s holding and dispute federal authority to enforce this regulation, we are encouraged that the Court confirmed the textual and historical analysis required under its Heller and Bruen decisions. We will continue to eliminate disarmament schemes and restore the right to keep and bear arms through our high-impact FPC Law strategic litigation program and other efforts.
|
NRA Releases Statement on Rahimi Decision
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Rahimi brought a facial challenge, arguing that Section 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment in all its applications. The Court ruled against Rahimi, finding that Section 922(g)(8)(C)(i) is constitutional as applied to the facts of Rahimi’s own case, because the nation’s historical tradition demonstrates that “[w]hen an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.” The Court declined to decide whether disarmament under Section 922(g)(8)(C)(ii)—which does not necessarily require a judicial finding of dangerousness—is also constitutional. Nor did the Court address what due process is required before disarmament.
|
UK: No guns for domestic abuse suspects, top US court rules
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
People placed under restraining orders for suspected domestic violence do not have a right to own guns, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The 8-1 decision upholds a 30-year-old law that bars those with restraining orders for domestic abuse from owning firearms.
A lower court had struck down that federal statute as not "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation".
Friday's ruling marks a rare victory for firearms restrictions in the top court. |
Is This the End of the Clarence Thomas Court?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Two years ago, Justice Clarence Thomas led an originalist revolution of sorts to expand the Second Amendment. The 6–3 decision that he authored in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen set up a narrow history-and-tradition test that invalidated any gun restriction without a “historical analogue.”
The Supreme Court reversed course on Friday. In an 8–1 decision in United States v. Rahimi, the justices upheld a federal law that temporarily disarms gun owners who are under domestic violence protection orders. This time, Thomas was the sole dissenter in the case. All five of his conservative colleagues in the Bruen majority flipped sides.
|
Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic violence restraining orders
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” Roberts wrote. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”
...Thomas, who wrote the Bruen decision, was the lone dissenter on Friday, insisting that it would be unconstitutional to take a gun from someone who is under a restraining order but not charged with a crime.
“The question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,” Thomas wrote. “The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence.” |
Supreme Court upholds law banning domestic abusers from owning guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 8-1 majority in a decision that faulted some courts for misunderstanding the court's recent moves backing gun rights.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter Friday and author of one of the past key gun rights decisions, said there isn't a "single historical regulation" that justifies the ban.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority but quibbled with analyzing statutes based on how they would have been viewed historically. |
UK: Clarence Thomas thinks domestic abusers should be allowed to carry guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The only dissent came from conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, whose 2022 decision in a major Second Amendment case vastly expanded gun rights and opened the door for lawsuits across the country that tried to tackle the profliferation of firearms and severe rates of gun violence.
Friday’s decision is a sigh of relief for survivors of domestic abuse, and a “powerful reminder that the gun lobby cannot — and will not — be the arbiter of the lives of women and families across the country,” according to Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of gun violence reform group Moms Demand Action. |
Supreme Court upholds prohibitions on guns for domestic violence offenders
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“The Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791,” Roberts said. Without directly undercutting Thomas’s landmark majority opinion from two years ago, he emphasized that the case explained “a challenged regulation that does not precisely match its historical precursors ‘still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.'”
Thomas, the author of Bruen, was the lone dissenter among the rest of the court and expressed outrage in a lengthy dissent from the majority. After the high court’s 2022 opinion, he wrote that the “directive was clear.”
|
|
|
