Ammo For Sale

« « a de Blasio special | Home | Gun Porn » »

A civil rights victory

This seems like a big deal:

Today, Joshua Prince and myself secured another victory for Second Amendment jurisprudence in Miller v. Sessions, et al., 2:17-cv-02627 in an issue of first impression across the United States. Judge Eduardo Robreno of the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled in a 25 page memorandum that it was unconstitutional, as-applied to Mr. Miller, to prevent him from exercising his Second Amendment right as a result of a 1998 misdemeanor conviction under the vehicle code specifically, the alteration of a PennDOT window tint exemption form.


6 Responses to “A civil rights victory”

  1. Lyle Says:

    It is an outrage that anyone should have to fight such a case in the first place.

    So where is the conviction for willful violation of one’s Oath to uphold, defend and protect the constitution of the United States?

    So long as they can get away with that, they can throw up all manner of “laws” and charges, beating us to death or into bankruptcy, even if we win every single case.

    They have nothing to lose and we have everything to lose.

  2. Blue Falcon in Boston Says:

    Massachusetts is notorious for creating misdefelonies deliberately in state law with punishments for misdemeanors set at a potential of 13 months to create prohibited persons.

  3. rickn8or Says:

    Blue Falcon,isn’t the line of demarcation between felonies and misdemeanors supposed to be twelve months?

  4. JTC Says:

    Lying about window tinting? They’re not letting that scofflaw bastard vote are they?

    Oh, and…Sessions? Good thing dude didn’t have a joint on him when they nailed him for that tint shit.

  5. Sigivald Says:

    Lyle. Seriously.

    Who do you think violated their oath in what way here?

    The people who made altering that form a misdemeanor?

    The people who made a law saying “convictions that could be over a year count as felonies”?

    The people who made a law saying “felons cannot own a gun”?

    None of those in itself obviously [or at all, period] violates that Oath.

    Even putting them together is not obviously and facially so repugnant to the Constitition as to violate the Oath in one piece.

    “The Court said this result was not acceptable” does not mean anyone, at any point, violated an oath of office. That is not how any of this works.

    To violate the Oath they’d have to do something obviously and facially contrary to the Constitution, and the standard there is not and cannot be “according to your preferences”.

    “Something that eventually the court decides was unconstitutional” is not a violation of the Oath.

    (Doing it again in just the same way, maybe. But the Oath doesn’t require reading the Court’s mind about four-factor analyses.)

  6. JTC Says:

    When viewed in the context of denying the individual rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment by any nefarious means possible, what part of violating the oath of office does every single one of those provisions not meet? Intent is everything.