Free Republic

The court’s unsigned order in Tandon v. Newsom signifies the reemergence of religious liberty as a valued jurisprudential principle to the Supreme Court.On Friday, for the fifth time the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding anti-religious COVID restrictions established by California’s embattled Gov. Gavin Newsom. The court’s unsigned order in Tandon v. Newsom represents much more than a victory for the plaintiffs who sought to host Bible studies in their homes on equal footing with analogous commercial activities: It signifies the reemergence of religious liberty as a valued jurisprudential principle to the Supreme...

In 2013, the State of Maryland passed into law the Firearms Safety Act (FSA), “…banning its residents from owning any of the large majority of semi-automatic rifles owned by American citizens.” When the Act was challenged in federal court (Kolbe vs Hogan), the state was immediately granted summary judgement, the court ruling that the Act was NOT “…an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment.” In February, however, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the Kolbe vs Hogan decision back to the lower court which had deemed the law constitutional, telling that court that it had used the wrong standard...

The Coach is Right piece which follows was posted in June of 2014. It involves a ruling in which U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin declared the District of Columbia law against carrying firearms for personal protection, unconstitutional. Scullin wrote of the “level of scrutiny” which had been applied to 2nd Amendment cases and in particular, the D.C. ban. An “intermediate” level of scrutiny applied by judges when deciding gun law makes it easier for anti-gun legislation to pass constitutional muster. “Strict scrutiny,” however, is the standard applied by judges to other laws “that arguably infringe an enumerated Constitutional rights;” free...

The provision had earlier read, “that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state”; it will now read, (a) Every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny. (b) No citizen shall be compelled by any international treaty or international law to take an action that prohibits, limits, or otherwise interferes with his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state, if such...

Louisiana Supreme Court justices are considering the residual and likely unintended effects of the constitutional amendment that voters overwhelmingly approved last year to make gun ownership a "fundamental" right. The question is whether the amended Constitution now lets convicted felons possess firearms, an act that is forbidden by the state criminal code. Just how far Louisiana's new gun right, one of the strongest in the country, should extend was a central theme of argument that lawyers gave Monday, on the constitutionality of Louisiana's law against felons possessing firearms. As Associate Justice John Weimer of Thibodaux framed it, in weighing a...

Mind boggling ignorance!

With just one vote on November 6th, you can build an iron wall around your Second Amendment freedoms and protect them from anti-gun, activist judges. That’s because on your ballot this year is an amendment to Louisiana’s state constitution that would provide the most rock-solid state-level legal protection for the right to keep and bear arms in the nation.  The language of the amendment reads: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny. The key words here are “strict...

The more we learn about this business of Meg Whitman, Republican gubernatorial candidate in California, supposedly hiring an undocumented worker as a domestic the more we have to ask ourselves, how on earth did Gloria Allred ever become known as a hotshot attorney? The letter from the Social Security Administration that Allred cites as damning proof of Whitman’s wrongdoing does no such thing. Read for yourself: "This letter does not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee’s name or SSN. It is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any...