Advertisements
Home

‘We will not obey’: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage

3 Comments

This is from Fox News Opinion.

As Christians, we answer to God as we have made the choice to serve him.

We will never accept the perversion of homosexuality as normal, no matter if the Supreme Court approves of it.

Joshua 24:15King James Version (KJV)

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

“We will not obey.”

That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.

 

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”

“You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.”

Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation.

“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”

And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”

That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.

“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

Scarborough said the pledge was meant to be forthright and clear.

“We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” he told me. For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians.”

Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge.

He referenced the “outrageous penalties” being assessed against people of faith simply because they don’t want to participate in a same-sex union.

An Oregon bakery is facing a $135,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and a Washington State florist faces fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

“Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,” he said. “Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. …  What will we do, and how will we respond?”

Dobson said there’s no doubt that LGBT activists are targeting Christian business owners.

“For about 50 years the homosexual community has had as its goal to change the culture, to change the ideology and if necessary – to force people who don’t agree by use of the courts,” Dobson told me. “I think there’s a collision here and we can all see it and where it’s going to go is anybody’s guess – but it is serious.”

To be clear – the men and women who courageously signed this pledge did so knowing the hell storm that is about to be unleashed on them – and their families.

“We have no choice,” Staver told me. “We cannot compromise our clear biblical convictions, our religious convictions.

Advertisements

WV Leads 27 States,Territories in Supreme Court Brief Supporting Citizens’ Rights to Buy, Sell Guns

Leave a comment

This is from Ammo Land.

If you can legally own a firearm where is the problem?

The problem is Barack Obama and Eric Holder the gun

hating Communist in control of our government.

West Virginia

CHARLESTON, West Virginia –-(Ammoland.com)- West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey today announced that West Virginia and 25 other states and one territory have filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing a federal government attempt to prosecute legal gun owners who wish to sell a weapon to another person who can legally own and purchase firearms.

“Our Office is proud to lead a bipartisan group of 27 states and territories in this brief to oppose the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to unilaterally create a federal restriction on firearm sales between law-abiding citizens,” Attorney General Morrisey said.

“We believe that every legal gun owner in this state and nation should be interested in the outcome of this case.”

The case, Abramski v. United States of America, challenges whether federal law prohibits citizens who legally buy a firearm from a licensed dealer with the intention of then selling that gun to another private citizen who also may legally own and purchase firearms.

The Obama administration argues that the citizen who buys and then sells the gun is acting as a “straw purchaser,” which they claim is illegal under several federal statutes.

The States, however, argue that Congress has never passed a federal law that prohibits such purchases. At most, the laws relied on by the United States prohibit private citizens from selling guns to people who are prohibited from owning firearms, such as minors, convicted felons, or people who have been diagnosed as having mental illnesses. It is up to the States and their citizens to decide whether to implement additional regulations on private gun sales.

West Virginia is joined in this brief by attorneys general representing Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

“This case is important to West Virginia citizens who wish to practice their Second Amendment rights and sell firearms to other legal West Virginia gun owners,” Morrisey said. “The State of West Virginia does not discourage private gun sales, but the Department of Justice wants to ensnare innocent West Virginian gun owners in a web of criminal laws if they try to sell their guns. This federal overreach is a blatant attempt to overstep state regulations and Congress in order to steer more gun sales to federally licensed dealers, who then make federal records of every transaction.”

The states’ amicus brief is in support of a former Roanoke, Va., police officer, Bruce Abramski, who purchased a gun in 2009 using a law enforcement discount and sold it to his elderly uncle, who lived in Pennsylvania. Both Abramski and his uncle could legally own firearms and made the transaction in accordance with Pennsylvania gun laws, including a background check of the purchaser. However, federal authorities prosecuted Abramski on the grounds that he made false statements on the gun purchase form.

In January 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld Abramski’s conviction, saying that such “straw purchases” are illegal under federal law. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to review the conviction.

“Our Office is very concerned about the federal government’s targeting of law-abiding gun buyers,” Morrisey said. “The federal government is attempting to circumvent Congress and set aside state regulations that don’t prevent private gun sales, and instead make sure there is a federal record of every gun bought or sold in the United States. While no one wants guns to end up in the hands of a potential or real criminal, the administration’s interpretation oversteps the law and could make criminals out of innocent citizens.”

Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 22, 2014, with a decision to come by the end of the court’s session in June.

To read the amicus brief, go to http://www.wvago.gov/pdf/12-1493tsacWestVirginia%20Abramski%20V%20US.pdf

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/supreme-court-brief-supporting-citizens-rights-to-buy-sell-guns/#ixzz2mkoldkD4
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

 

Gun-rights activists ask Supreme Court to uphold ‘Firearms Freedom Act’

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

As screwy as the Supreme Court is who knows how

the court will rule.

Just look a the Obamacare ruling.

 

HELENA, Mont. –  Gun advocates asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to overturn a lower court’s ruling against state laws designed to buck federal gun rules.

Earlier this year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge’s decision against the 2009 Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The law attempts to declare that federal firearms regulations don’t apply to guns kept in the state where they were manufactured.

Other pro-gun states have passed similar measures.

The Justice Department has argued successfully that the courts already have decided Congress can use its power to regulate interstate commerce. Some gun-control advocates sided with the federal argument, saying “firearm freedom acts” would allow felons to obtain guns without background checks and make it harder to trace guns used in crimes.

Gun advocates have long said only the Supreme Court can decide the case because it will have to limit the reach of Congress to regulate guns. The Supreme Court is expected to decide next year whether to accept the request.

The advocates, led by the Montana Shooting Sports Association, have had legal support from the attorneys general from the pro-gun states of Montana, Utah, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. States that have formally passed a version of Firearms Freedom Act include Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Tennessee, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

MSSA president Gary Marbut has said he wants to manufacture a small, bolt-action youth-model rifle called the “Montana Buckaroo” for sale in Montana. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms told Marbut such a gun would be illegal under Montana law, prompting a lawsuit by the group against the U.S. attorney general.

Marbut said high court decisions dating back to 1942 dealing with certain interstate commerce need to be reversed. The request to the Supreme Court argues the rulings have allowed more concentration of power with the federal government, creating problems like more national debt and the potential for abuses of power.

“Without the centralization of so much regulatory power in the federal government, tyranny would be a lot less likely to occur,” the argument reads.

 

9th Circuit Issues Important Gun-Rights Decision

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

California-(Ammoland.com)- It took nearly two years but this morning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision written by ninety year old judge Harry Pregerson which created a framework in the 9th Circuit for deciding Second Amendment cases.

The court of appeals adopted a “Two Step Inquiry” (1) If the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment then (2) courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

This is an important decision because when the US Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the cases involved bans. The High Court did not describe a framework for the courts to use to evaluate laws that fell short of outright bans as was the case in Heller and McDonald.

Until today, the cases decided in the 9th Circuit did not articulate a framework because they either involved persons the court said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., convicted felons) or “arms” which the court likewise said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., bombs) or persons using firearms to further their criminal enterprise (e.g, drug dealers), etc. In cases such as this, the court decided that it was not necessary to articulate a framework to use in deciding the cases. In other words, these were “Open and Shut” cases.

What This Portends for the Concealed Carry and Open Carry cases?

There are close to a dozen concealed carry cases either pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or are currently being decided in the lower 9th Circuit District Courts. Unfortunately, the concealed carry cases have several insurmountable mountains to climb. First, the US Supreme Court said that its decision in Heller did not invalidate prohibitions on concealed carry and when the Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in McDonald it also applied the Heller decision to the states. The US Supreme Court in Heller said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

So the concealed carry cases are unlikely to even reach, let alone pass, the first step of the “Two Step Inquiry.” For nearly two hundred years state courts have said that concealed carry is not a right. Two recent Supreme Court decisions say concealed carry is not a right as have every Federal Court of Appeals to decide the question. Since there are only two ways to carry a firearm, openly or concealed, that leaves the two Open Carry cases, Nichols V. Brown and Young v. Hawaii to be decided under the “Two Step Inquiry” framework.

“Step 1″ – Does the challenged law burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment?

The US Supreme Court said that Open Carry perfectly captures the meaning of the Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms and both California and Hawaii ban Open Carry. So both Open Carry cases pass “Step 1.”

“Step 2″ – Having passed “Step 1,” courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

There are three levels of scrutiny; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. “Rational Basis” basically means the government wins except in rare circumstances such as the law being “irrational” or “arbitrary.” The Supreme Court in Heller took rational basis off the table so that leaves intermediate and strict scrutiny.

Intermediate Scrutiny – Sliding Scale

Intermediate Scrutiny is a sliding scale that courts apply to “regulations” of fundamental rights that fall short of a ban. For example, if you as an individual want to walk up and down the sidewalk wearing a t-shirt with some political or religious message then you are free to do so. If there were a local law requiring a permit for you to do so then it would likely be overturned even under the low end of “intermediate scrutiny.” However, If you and a hundred friends want to walk up and down the same sidewalk then you might have to comply with a law requiring you to get a permit and that law would normally be subject to the sliding scale of “intermediate scrutiny.” The greater the restrictions placed on getting a permit, the greater the burden on the government in justifying the law.

However, once a law passes a certain threshold then “strict scrutiny” applies and the restrictions on your fundamental rights have to be narrowly tailored and the government needs a very good reason to justify that restriction.

Under both intermediate and strict scrutiny the burden of proof is on the government to justify those restrictions.

There is an exception however, when the government bans a protected right, as does California and Hawaii which both ban the bearing arms for the purpose of self-defense, then it is unnecessary for the court to decide what level of scrutiny to apply. Bans on fundamental rights are always unconstitutional regardless of the level of scrutiny.

The case decided today was US v. Chovan (11-50107). Mr. Chovan had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence which results in a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms under Federal law unless the conviction is expunged, pardoned or otherwise set-aside. In California, once the period of probation has expired, a person has the right to have his misdemeanor conviction expunged. Mr. Chovan did not have his conviction expunged and was therefore charged with possession of a firearm in violation of Federal law.

 

Charles Nichols is the President of California Right To Carry, a non-profit California association of Second Amendment advocates. Mr. Nichols filed a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public.


Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/11/9th-circuit-issues-important-gun-rights-decision/#ixzz2l8G3hkGM 

 

Brian Aitken possessed firearms legally did not break any laws but was sent to prison

1 Comment

Hat tip to Teresamerica.

This should chill every gun owner down to their soul.

 

First of all the judge is a stupid imbecile who needs to be stripped of his position as judge.  A massive injustice was committed and it wasn’t about falling through the cracks but it looks like the judge did this intentionally and ignored laws. Second, let’s help Brian have his case heard in front of the Supreme Court by buying his book. Third, this case should alarm any gun owner, especially those moving across state lines.  This whole situation is F*cked up (sorry about the language but this pisses me off, the fact that a moron judge abused his power). He screwed with someone’s life and now Brian is unable to see his son. We need to make sure this type of malevolent injustice NEVER happens again. Thank goodness that Governor Christie commuted his sentence after Brian having served 4 months.

From LibertyGlobe: 

Brian Aitken is a normal, law abiding citizen; at the time of his arrest he still had student loans, a wife and a young child.

Everything changed when he was arrested and sent to serve time for something which was actually legal.

While he was moving from Colorado to New Jersey, Brian was pulled over and had his vehicle searched despite not being suspected of a crime. In the car he had two locked, unloaded and legally purchased firearms. The law specifically outlines an exemption clause which allows the transportation of legally owned firearms while in the process of moving. During the trial, the jury even asked the judge 3 times if they could rule based on this law but the requests were denied!

Brian was sentenced to 7 years for doing something that was legal, he was not breaking the law, he fell victim to a judge applying the rules how he saw fit. Thankfully, the governor of New Jersey released Brian early, but the NJ supreme court refuses to hear his case and his status as a convicted felon means he cannot see his son.

He is now raising money for a book through Indiegogo which he well then use the proceeds of to take his case to the US Supreme CourtNo matter what side you are on in the gun control debate, this is a case of severe injustice.

 

Kansas school board brings back student-led prayer

Leave a comment

This is from BizPac Review.

It is reassuring to see people standing up for their faith.

Christians have been pushed and shunned for too long.

All America need to stand up and say “No more Christian bashing’.

A rural Kansas School Board courageously defied 50 years of U.S. Supreme Court rulings by allowing student-led prayer at all school activities, even broadcasting them on the school’s public address system.

What began as an unscheduled, impromptu suggestion at a Monday ISD No. 480 School Board meeting ended up as a motion that was immediately seconded, discussed and unanimously approved, according to the Leader and Times.

“I think that’s one of the greatest things we’ve ever done,” said Board Member Tammy Sutherland-Abbott, who seconded Board Member Nick Hatcher’s motion.

Hatcher had spontaneously introduced the idea.

“I would like to see us bring prayer back to the games,” he told his fellow board members. “I have struggled with that — not having prayer at our activities — because it’s ‘not the thing to do,’ but if the board thought it was important enough that they would support it, and defend it if the time came, I’d like to ask that we do that at our next meeting.”

The schools superintendent questioned why the board should wait until the next meeting.

“We do live in a democratic society, and I personally feel like our community would support that decision, regardless of the rest of the world,” Hatcher said.

The Leader and Times reported:

Several years ago, LHS discontinued prayer at events like football games. Administration voiced concern that, by making the P.A. system available for prayers led by students or community members, the district could be perceived as sanctioning or even promoting traditional Christian prayer in violation of federal law. Student-led prayers then moved to the football field itself, prior to the game. However, no microphone or speaker system allowed spectators to hear such prayers. Monday night’s vote will permit students to utilize the P.A. system for prayer before football games and all other special activities in the district.

The Warren Supreme Court declared school-sanctioned prayer unconstitutional in the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale. In that case, the New York officials were challenged for encouraging public schools to recite prayers written by them.

The 2000 case of Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, however, is more directly on point. In that case, the court ruled 6-3 that student-composed and -led prayer prior to football games is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

Kansas is a part of a Middle America region unflatteringly known as “flyover country,” where residents pay their taxes without squabble, send their sons and daughters off to fight our wars and whose word is unhesitatingly their bond.

Note that it wasn’t small-ttown bankers that had to be bailed out in the waning days of 2007. They wouldn’t dream of making an investment that could jeopardize the hard-earned life savings of their depositors and shareholders — not when they have to face those same people at the local supermarket, pharmacy or in chuech on Sunday.

More than anything, the people inhabiting flyover country are expected to do all they can for their country and countrymen and keep their mouths shut while the geniuses in Washington, New York and Los Angeles make the really important decisions.

It’s both encouraging and heartwarming to see the people in this area of Kansas rise up and revolt, Spartacus-like, as they tell Washington, D.C.: “We tried your way, thank you. We’ll go back to doing it our way.”

Connecticut judge declares ‘No one should have guns’

1 Comment

This is from The Examiner.

There is no doubt in my mind that  Judge Robert C. Brunetti and  Judge Edward Mullarkey

are life long DemocRats.

How many more Judges on the bench have this attitude?

We may never know.


A Superior Court judge in Bristol “expressed his contempt for the right to keep and bear arms’ in a closed door meeting in his chambers, the stategun rights group Connecticut Carry reported last Thursday in a media advisory. Judge Robert C. Brunetti “exposed his bigotry for fundamental civil rights in front of at least three defense attorneys,” the group explained.

“No one in this country should have guns,” the judge reportedly stated, adding “I never return guns.”

“A judge’s role is to be impartial and to render verdicts, rulings and judgments based upon law and case law, certainly not personal opinion,” the press release continued. “Judge Brunetti has clearly decided to lead an anti-rights crusade under color of his judicial position and it must end.”

Media outlets claimed lack of personnel to provide coverage in the case of Connecticut v. Bruce Worley, the press statement advised, advocating “The citizens of Connecticut have a right to know about Judge Brunetti.”

He is, in fact, the second judge to come out recently with blatantly anti-gun sentiments. In July, the group reported on Judge Edward Mullarkey, who “proclaimed from the bench that those who support the Second Amendment should be ‘ashamed.’”

“How many more judges in Connecticut are abusing their authority like this when these judges are so willing to openly flaunt their bigotry?” the release asked. “There is no place in Connecticut for a judge who will so willingly contradict The Supreme Court’s ruling on such an important civil right.”

 

 

Supreme Court May Get Second Chance to Kill Obamacare’s Insurance Mandates.

2 Comments

This is from Godfather Politics.

No guarantees that Chief Justice John Roberts will not screw the pooch again.

But maybe just maybe the Supreme court will get it right and strike down Obamacare.

Just maybe the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Washington DC will get it

right and strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional.

I know it is wishful thinking but it never hurts to hope for the best.

Please help tp spread the word about this case.

The last time Obamacare went before the US Supreme Court, they ruled that the insurance mandate was legal because it was a tax and not a penalty.  The hopes and financial well-being of millions of Americans was dashed down on the rocky shores of bankruptcy when Chief Justice John Roberts betrayed the American people.

Now, Congress is fighting over whether or not to fund Obamacare and use it as leverage in the stalemate on the federal spending bill.  If the stalemate isn’t resolved by October 1, the federal government just may have to shut down.  Some conservatives believe that could actually be a good thing, but the liberals want us to believe that it will spell the end of the world.

In the background and hidden away from the general public, the lawsuit Sissel vs. US Dept. of Health and Human Services moves forward and is one step closer the US Supreme Court.  President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and the liberal mainstream media don’t want any of you to know about this lawsuit that could remove the very heart of Obamacare – the insurance mandate.

The lawsuit is based upon Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Origination Clause, which states:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Once the Supreme Court ruled that the insurance mandate was a tax, that meant the bill violated this section of the Constitution.  The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Matt Sissel by Pacific Legal Foundation, contends that the bill that became known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act originated in the US Senate and not the House, as required by the Constitution.  They claim that Sen. Harry Reid used procedural gimmicks to launch the bill and therefore Obamacare violates the Origination Clause.
Once the Supreme Court ruled that the insurance mandate was a tax, that meant the bill violated this section of the Constitution.  The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Matt Sissel by Pacific Legal Foundation, contends that the bill that became known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act originated in the US Senate and not the House, as required by the Constitution.  They claim that Sen. Harry Reid used procedural gimmicks to launch the bill and therefore Obamacare violates the Origination Clause.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12645/supreme-court-may-get-second-chance-kill-obamacares-insurance-mandate/#LZEMF2EyXigFQAy8.99

 

Ninth Circuit Rules in Firearms Freedom Act Case

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

We will take anything that looks like a win from The ninth circus(circuit)court.

This ruling bodes well for any state that is considering a firearms freedom act.

 Firearms Freedom Act

Missoula, MT –-(Ammoland.com)- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released its opinion today in MSSA v. Holder, the lawsuit brought in federal court to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

The MFFA was enacted by the Montana Legislature and signed into law by then Governor Brian Schweitzer in 2009.

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to “regulate commerce … among the states.”  The MFFA uses firearms as a vehicle to challenge federal commerce clause power.

Plaintiffs in MSSA v. Holder are the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA), the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gary Marbut, President of MSSA.  To set up the legal challenge, Marbut determined to manufacture a youth-model, .22 caliber, bolt-action rifle called the “Montana Buckaroo.”

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms informed Marbut that any such unlicensed manufacture would be illegal under federal law.

Despite Marbut’s BATF-prohibited plans to make the Montana Buckaroo, the federal District Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” to bring the lawsuit, and dismissed the lawsuit.  MSSA appealed this dismissal to the Ninth Circuit.

In its long-awaited ruling today, the Ninth Circuit reversed the federal District Court on the standing issue, saying that Marbut has standing to bring the challenge, but held that existing Supreme Court precedent was against plaintiffs on the merits of the lawsuit.

Marbut commented, “This was about as good of a ruling as we could have expected from the Ninth Circuit.  We must get to the U.S. Supreme Court to accomplish our goal of overturning 70 years of flawed Supreme Court rulings on the interstate commerce clause.  We knew that the Ninth Circuit couldn’t help us with that.  Only the Supreme Court can overturn Supreme Court precedent.  However, now that the standing question is resolved in our favor, we have the green light to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

Marbut says the attorneys involved are already beginning to work on the appeal process.

Marbut continued, “The time is ripe in America for states to challenge federal power, from Obamacare to indefinite detention, to illegal spying on U.S. Citizens and media, to IRS abuses of power, and more.  It was the states which created this federal government that has grown to become such a monster.  It’s time for the states to get their creature back on a leash.  With MSSA v. Holder, we will offer the Supreme Court a chance to do just that.”

Since the MFFA was initially enacted in Montana in 2009, nine other states have enacted clones of the MFFA, and 20-some additional states have introduced MFFA-clone bills.  The lawsuit to validate the MFFA principles, MSSA v. Holder, has attracted many intervenors and amicus curiae parties.  These include the State of Montana, the attorneys general of eight other states, Montana legislators, legislators from other states, the Goldwater Institute, Gun Owners Foundation, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the CATO Institute, the Weapons Collectors Society of Montana, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and others.

More information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement and lawsuit is available at:
http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com

 

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/08/ninth-circuit-rules-in-firearms-freedom-act-case/#ixzz2d7oFZhbi
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

 

NJ Supreme Court to Hear 2A Case on ‘Justifiable Need’, NJ’s Excuse for CCW Denials

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

This is a case gun owners need to follow closely.

 

 

July 23rd, 2013. Ammoland.com
Article Source

 

Trenton, NJ — For the first time in 45 years the New Jersey Supreme Court has granted a hearing related to Second Amendment rights, on the case ofRichard Pantano, owner of a NJ Landscape Supply Business that handles as much as $2,000,000 in cash a year.

Richard was denied a rarely seen, exclusive to ‘Only Ones‘ – NJ Concealed Carry License, by the lower courts on the claim that he did not have sufficient “Justifiable Need“.

Richard Pantano’s appeal stems from the trial court’s October 31, 2011 denial of his application for a permit to carry a firearm under N.J.S.A. 2C:58–4.

The Manalapan Township Police Chief had approved Pantano’s application in December 2010 and the State appealed. In a written opinion, Judge Francis P. DeStefano concluded after a testimonial hearing that Pantano had not demonstrated “a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58–4(d).

Pantano asserts the court erred in finding no justifiable need, and, in the alternative, he argues the justifiable need requirement infringes his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. U.S. Constitution, amendment. II.

Although Concealed Carry Laws are on the books in New Jersey, judges and police chiefs have almost unanimously declined concealed carry permits to everyone but, other police, judges, politicians and famous friends of the aforementioned. Effectively New Jersey does not have Concealed Carry, and contrary to mainstream media reports, is still the only state in the USA where its citizens can not defend themselves outside their homes.

Supporters of concealed carry rights in NJ are looking forward to their day in Court even if it only leads to a further appeal to higher courts.

Pantano is represent by Evan Nappen, better known as “NJ’s Gun Lawyer” as he literally wrote the book on New Jersey Gun Laws.

New Jersey Supreme Court Docket

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: