Interesting legal developments in this post-BRUEN era. The first one is a real surprise, the second one maybe not so much in light of the insults from the Left toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg sentenced a Florida man to fifteen months in Federal Prison for sending threatening Tweets to Colorado U.S. Congresswoman in 2021. Matthew Lee Comiskey sent five threatening tweets to Rep. Lauren Boebert mentioning firearms and encouraging others to do her harm. Comiskey originally faced five counts of making an interstate threat but pleaded guilty last year to one count. In my previous life as a corporate pilot, I had the pleasure of meeting Rep. Boebert and dining at Shooter’s Grill, her Rifle, Colorado restaurant where nearly every member of the staff is armed.
Not surprisingly the anti-gun, and now-convicted felon’s mother, told the court that her son’s actions were “out of character”. Sure they were. Thanks to Ammoland.com for bringing this story to our attention.
In another news story this week, with a nine-to-zero decision, SCOTUS eases prison sentences for some gun crimes. It has to do with concurrent vs consecutive sentences. But the interesting thing in the ruling was that the Court returned to the Judiciary some discretion in sentencing. You might be wondering why it’s important. It appears to be another step toward reigning in federal agencies, limiting them to only exercising the power Congress has allocated them.
Finally this week, we are getting more information about twenty (yes, twenty!), IRS Agents raiding a gun store in Montana, seizing AFT 4473 forms as part of an alleged tax case. We had something similar happen years ago in Des Moines, Iowa. The gun dealer here was told by the IRS that his business was far more profitable based on the number of firearms sales, despite an audit showing that it was not. (Clearly, federal employees with no business experience assume that the markup on new guns is the amount between the jobber wholesale price and MSRP, not some other number as dictated by the local market). He did not have the money to fight the IRS assessment, despite them being sure he had millions in an unidentified account somewhere. But don’t worry, 87,000 new IRS agents won’t be bothering everyday Americans. Biden says they are only going after the super-rich.
Help IFC continue to fight the good fight by joining or renewing your membership today.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
This week’s President’s Message “Bruen Strikes Again”, is about the recent case out of Philadelphia by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled a non-violent felon by the name of Bryan Range, who was denied his Second Amendment Rights for over thirty years, had been wrongly disarmed.
This case is significant in that it starts to reign in State Legislatures and the US Congress from whittling away at all of our Constitutional rights by legislative fiat.
Having filed and argued an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Range, the Firearms Policy Coalition and the FPC Action Foundation released a statement on this case. Here is part of the FPC and FPCAF statement:
“In 1995, Bryan Range was convicted in a Pennsylvania state court for making a false statement to obtain food stamps assistance, a class one misdemeanor. Because of that conviction twenty-eight years ago, he was forever banned from possessing firearms, a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment. Today, the en banc Third Circuit held that ban unconstitutional.
“At root, the Government’s claim that only ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from ‘the people,’” wrote Judge Hardiman in the majority opinion. “We reject that approach because such ‘extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.’”
FPC and FPCAF filed amicus briefs in this case at both the3-judge anden banc panel stages, and FPCAF’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee, argued the case as an amicus curiae before the 3-judge panel. Greenlee’s authoritativescholarship on the issue, an article published by the Wyoming Law Review in 2020, was cited in both a concurring and dissenting opinion, as it had been by the 3-judge panel opinion. His newestarticle on the issue argues for a result consistent with today’s ruling by the en banc majority.
“For nearly three decades, Mr. Range has been unjustly denied his Second Amendment rights,” said Greenlee. “We’re thrilled that Mr. Range’s rights have been restored, and about the decision’s potential implications for countless others who have been wrongfully disarmed.””
I cannot emphasize how significant this ruling is not just because of the Bruen Decision, but also the passage of the Freedom Amendment in Iowa, last Fall.
Chevrons Deference and the BATFE — what does it mean to you? About forty years ago the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) created what is now known as Chevron Deference. As the Brookings Institute explains, this allows the courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretation of ambiguous federal statutes. Possibly the greatest legacy of the current SCOTUS may be one of annihilating the administrative state, by ending doctrine of Chevron Deference.
SCOTUS’s recent rulings have put the EPA back on its heels and sent a shot across the bow of all federal (and many state) agencies. This matters to all of us as Second Amendment supporters that this is happening because the ability of the BATFE may be greatly curtailed to only being able to do what Congress has told them to do. They do not have the ability to make law.
Another case pending before SCOTUS is Looper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo.This case will not be decided until early next year, but court watchers think that based on other recent comments and rulings that this case may be the end of Chevron Deference once and for all.
There is an incredibly timely piece published on May 28th at AmericanThinker.com by Congressman Paul A. Gosar about the out-of-control BATFE. The pending pistol rule “reinterpetation” will make as many as 40 million Americans instant felons over a piece of plastic. To quote Rep. Gosar on the importance of this issue:
“By no stretch of the imagination is this a partisan issue, despite some vulnerable members’ concern that this is a controversial topic — far from it! On the contrary, supporting this rule is the radical position which will require an answer from enraged voters. Since pistols and people with disabilities exist in every congressional district, all constituencies are affected by this rule.”
We are watching these developments closely and will keep you apprised as best we can. Thanks for your continued support of IFC and IFC-PAC. If you’re a member, please renew and if not, please join.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Anti-freedom hypocrItes! Here are just a couple of examples from the last few weeks of those Leftist Dangerous Quacks who have gun-toters protecting them, but don’t think you should have the same right to self defense. These are two of the most radical:
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy not only wants to disarm law abiding Americans, but he is talking about how if he doesn’t get his way, there will be a popular revolt against all gun owners. This sounds like a call for an insurrection. He told Chuck Todd on the May 14th NBC Meet The Press:
And last but not least, former (and some argue he is still pulling the strings in the Biden administration), President Obama. Both he and his wannabe POTUS wife Michelle, have attacked your rights to self-defense and firearm ownership. In a recent interview the former President called for the United States to emulate Australia’s draconian gun laws.
Owning and using a firearm is limited in Australia to people with a genuine reason, and self-protection does not constitute a genuine reason to possess, own or use a firearm.
Note in Australia that self-protection is not a good reason to own a gun. But if you’re a member of the elite of society, then you can have private armed security to protect yourself.
Repeating History
It never ceases to amaze me how much the current Democrat Party is resembling the NAZI’s of the 1920-1940 period in their quest to disarm everyone. But then, how can you have your way with your opponents if they can fight back? Not unlike a rapist can with a smaller and weaker victim.
In certain basic respects — a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom — fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.
—Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard, New York Times Magazine, Sunday, April 4, 1948
One thing for sure. Both Murphy and Obama are hypocritical in their calls for total disarmament of the American people, they are both protected by staff with firearms. You and I cannot be trusted to defend ourselves. Don’t let these hypocrites who are wrong about nearly everything tell you how to live. These are the same people who create problems for the rest of us and then stand off to the side and in a detached manner, acting like an outside observer claiming no responsibility.
Stay in the fight, join or renew your IFC membership today.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Those dangerous, and clueless quacks are still proposing their perilous ideas. The latest comes from writer Alan Goldstein in a Special to The Desert Sun titled “Let’s Get Serious And Repeal The Second Amendment.” Why am I not surprised that this article comes out of San Francisco?
His piece is so bad I almost don’t know where to start. Here is the first question I have for Mr. Goldstein; Did you not learn anything from the evil perpetrated upon Six Million Jews by Adolph Hitler? When the Nazis swept into power in the 1930’s the first thing they did was register all the guns. Then they took them from all of the law-abiding people of Germany, giving the Nazis a monopoly on power. But I suppose in his Pollyanna view, getting rid of the Second Amendment will only bring rainbows and unicorns to the world.
This quote from his article lays out just how out of touch his idea is:
“Getting serious means repealing, or drastically amending, the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has decided that “a well-regulated militia” includes gang bangers and wild-eyed loners with a grudge. They say the Constitution makes it impossible to pass the gun laws that an overwhelming majority of the American people want. But the Constitution is not a suicide note. The Second Amendment can be amended, even repealed.”
I’m not sure where Mr. Goldstein found in recent decisions that gang-bangers and loners are singled out to remain fully armed. But I have news for him, criminals by definition commit crimes, and that’s why disarming honest Americans will not stop crime.
He further lays out how this repeal would happen, starting with leftist States like California and New York, then spreading throughout the country. Apparently, Mr. Goldstein has not bothered to read about how to amend the Constitution. But the primary way is to get it through Congress first, then send it out to the States to ratify. Good luck with that bucky…
His entire article reeks of elitism, and does not address the serious issues surrounding crime, mental illness, monopolies of power, and breakdowns of the family and communities. He clearly does not see how this, and other leftist policies have exacerbated these issues everywhere they have been tried.
More importantly, his idea would clear the way for a police state, which is what his tribe wants.
A B747 Captain I flew with as a young pilot at Northwest Airlines had a great phrase that has stuck with me since the day I first heard him say it.
“The clueless always are.”
Let’s not let the clueless and dangerous quacks vote away our God-given right to self-defense. Join or renew your IFC membership today here.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Sign up now for our e-mail alert list to stay plugged into what's going on with your 2A rights here in Iowa.
IFC will never sell, rent or share your personal information, including your e-mail address, with any third parties for any purposes without your express permission. IFC may share your personal information for the purpose of delivering our e-mail to you or as required by law.
Recent Comments