Supreme Court Looks Ready To Ditch ALL Gun Laws, Won't That Be Fun?

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Corlett looks like it will be a bloodbath.

This week, the Supreme Court decided to hear a gun case, granting cert in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett.
It's bad.
It's very bad.

At the very least, this case is almost certainly going to make it easier for people to carry guns with them in public. And at the worst, it could be used to gut any number of gun control laws across the country.

Concealed carry for everyone!

New York and seven other states make people show "good cause" to get a concealed carry permit. More than one-quarter of the US population lives in those states.

Concealed carry laws were some of the first firearms restrictions in the country and the New York law at issue in this case has been on the books since 1913. If you want to carry a gun in public for something like going to a shooting range, you can get a limited license to carry it specifically for that purpose. But to get an unrestricted concealed carry license, you have to "show a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community."

Now, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and two men who were denied concealed carry permits are arguing that "law-abiding citizens" have a god-given Second Amendment right to take their guns wherever they please — and the Supreme Court appears poised to agree with them. The crazies are represented by former George W. Bush solicitor general and go-to Republican lawyer Paul Clement.

The fact that the Court took the case at all indicates which way it's going to rule. The Second Circuit upheld the lower court's dismissal of Corlett and courts that get to pick and choose which cases to hear don't tend to agree to hear something just to say, "Great job! Well done!"

There's also the little matter of our current Court ...

Laws, judges, and guns

Keep reading... Show less

Brett Kavanaugh Finds Some Youths Who Don't Deserve A Second Chance: All Of Them But Him

Welcome to the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Jones v. Mississippi, a case about sentencing children to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Authored by none other than Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the majority opinion guts existing precedent on juvenile life without parole and allows states like Mississippi to keep sending children to prison for the rest of their lives, no matter how young they were at the time of the crime and no matter what they do to rehabilitate themselves.

But Brett Kavanaugh, you ask? Wasn't he ... yes.

Keep reading... Show less

MyPillow Suing Voting Company Dominion For McCarthyism Or Some Sh*t, Who Knows, It's Hard To Tell

This is just very good 'lawsuit.'

Monday, we were granted a wonderful gift, in the form of one of the greatest lawsuits of our time: MyPillow v. Dominion. Dominion is already suing MyPillow and its CEO, Mike Lindell, for $1.3 billion. Not to be outdone, MyPillow has now sued Dominion for $1.6 billion in very real and totally-not-made-up damages.

Declaring that Dominion is the government, MyPillow's suit claims that Dominion is doing "lawfare" and cancel culturing its First Amendment rights. (Yes, this is basically what the complaint argues. No, this is not a thing.)

This lawsuit, says MyPillow, is really on behalf of the entire public square and marketplace of ideas against the oppressive tyranny of the voting tech manufacturer.

Dominion is using the legal process as a weapon to suppress free speech. In contrast, MyPillow brings this action to open debate and expand free speech. Indeed, MyPillow would move this entire debate to the public square for a full airing of all facts and opinions on the subject. This lawsuit is brought in support of the marketplace of ideas and to remedy the grave harm that has been suffered by MyPillow as a result of Dominion's suppression of speech and attacks on the Company.

Sadly, neither the public square nor the marketplace of ideas is named as a plaintiff.

Keep reading... Show less

Derek Chauvin Is Guilty Because He Killed George Floyd, Not Because He Took The Fifth

Principles, people. We've got 'em, remember?

"I will invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege today."

Other than a few video clips taken immediately after he killed George Floyd, those are the only words the public has heard Derek Chauvin speak since he killed George Floyd on May 25 of last year.

As the defense rested after nearly two weeks of expert and witness testimony, Chauvin invoked his constitutional right to remain silent. This was immediately met with terrible takes — including from people who should know better — about how Chauvin not taking the stand proves his guilt.


Invoking your constitutional rights is NOT an admission of guilt.

Let's get this straight:

Derek Chauvin should be convicted of murder because he tortured George Floyd to death. He should NOT be convicted of murder because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Keep reading... Show less

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc