Posted on 03/25/2024 5:28:38 AM PDT by marktwain
The Idaho Attorney General has joined with the Attorney General of Indiana and 26 other state AGs or Legislatures to file an amicus brief in the case of Bevis v City of Naperville.
On November 22, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for an injunction pending appeal to en banc review or for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. On December 20, the request for an en banc hearing is denied. On March 8, 2024, a petition asking for a stay of proceedings pending a Supreme Court appeal is granted.
From the press release by Idaho AG Labrador:
Attorneys General Raúl Labrador of Idaho and Todd Rokita of Indiana led 26 other states in filing a brief with the United States Supreme Court challenging Illinois’ unconstitutional ban of AR-15 rifles and their standard 30-round magazines.
“This ruling from the Seventh Circuit flies in the face of the Bruen decision and the Second Amendment’s unqualified command,” said Attorney General Labrador. “To restrict an inanimate object based on nothing more than cosmetic appearance is absurd, and the Supreme Court needs to make this right with all expediency.”
The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Barnett v. Raoul found the Illinois gun ban constitutional, holding that the plain language of the Second Amendment and the term “Arms” does not apply to AR-15s because of their militaristic appearance. The Seventh Circuit’s decision lacks any textual or historical basis. In fact, the arms the Second Amendment originally protected were those used in military combat. The Seventh Circuit’s analysis bears no resemblance to the analysis prescribed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Attorneys General. Just sayin’...
Attorneys General, not “attorney generals.”
Conservatives need to learn the proper writing skills.
“Shall not be infringed”
Similarly, courts martial sted court martials
I’m afraid the American People are going to have to overturn them themselves. The SCOTUS has gone full left, shickenchit. They are our Bill of Rights. They don’t belong to the U.S. Government or the SCOTUS.
Here is another Second Amendment case on the issue of magazine bans winding its way through the courts. This one is in the Fourth Circuit.
“Fourth Circuit Shenanigans Should Be Called Out by SCOTUS”
From the article:
“In December of 2022 a three-judge panel on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case called Bianchi v. Brown that challenges Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons. The Supreme Court had granted cert to Bianchi in the immediate wake of the Bruen decision, but vacated the Fourth Circuit’s previous decision upholding the ban and remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit for a re-hearing based on the findings in Bruen.
Gun owners had been waiting for that panel to release its decision for over a year, but last Friday the Fourth Circuit took the almost unprecedented step of declaring that it was taking the case en banc before the panel issued its decision. I was dealing with some of my wife’s medical issues on Friday and didn’t have the opportunity to weigh in until now, which is probably a good thing given that my immediate response to the news wasn’t exactly family-friendly.”
Conservatives need to learn the proper writing skills.
************
I doubt many of the entire populace have made everything they
do a complete 100% perfect endeavor. But life goes on with our
attempts at making changes.
Next you’ll be telling me it’s not “marshal law.”
The current Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) is the most originalist and textualist (conservative) in the last 90 years.
Don’t disagree. Humans aren’t necessarily the most for all
types of living but that is what we have in some form of a
dictatorship or elected controllers. JMO.
Well, that leaves me out...
Nobody pulling out the 14th A. blanket like the Left did w/ “g@y ‘marriage’”. ‘Our side’ merely splits hairs, the Left/Stat/Global-ists push through w/o hesitation.
“...Second Amendment and the term “Arms” does not apply to AR-15s because of their militaristic appearance....”
I guess they’re giving up on the “well regulated militia” canard. It must not have been working.
EC
You are mistaken.
The McDonald decision in 2010 incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Most of the Second Amendment cases now in play (there are a couple dozen, I think), are mostly based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
ping
Thanks, you reactivated my twitch...
“Conservatives need to learn the proper writing skills.”
And liberals need to learn how to read and write...period.
My home state of Kansas is a Constitutional Carry state. The framers were pretty explicit:
§ 4. Individual right to bear arms; armies. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
It doesn’t state anything about what type of arm I can own whether it be a flintlock rifle or an M240. I think the Federal Constitution should be amended to include that verbiage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.