RT @aarmark: Talkers Heavy 100 AAR is LIVE, AUDIO ONLY TODAY w/ @Dcodrea David Codrea War on Guns

Don’t miss featured presenter, Amanda Suffecool ( @REALIZERadio ), at the GRPC pre-conference event, AMM-Con!. Amanda Suffecool is a retired engineer who spends her spare time sharing her love of country, constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment with others. Amanda is the

SAF has filed its opening brief with the Third Circuit in its case challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by medical marijuana users. Prohibiting medical marijuana users from purchasing, possessing, or utilizing firearms and state-authorized medical marijuana is a clear

All in all, this ruling repeatedly says it is listening to Bruen, while flouting it at every turn. We hope the Supreme Court steps in soon to address rulings like this. It can begin to address "Sensitive places" by granting cert in Wolford, as the federal government has also.

The panel acknowledges that Bruen said three analogues are not enough. But in its ruling, it relied on very sparse local restrictions to uphold the ban and justify its "crowded places" principle.

As we pointed out in Wolford, a mere six examples is meaningless at a time when hundreds of different railroad companies existed at various times.

As if hearing our complaint, the panel finally goes into a discussion of 19th century train company restrictions. However, even if private company rules were proper analogues, the panel ignores that most companies did not have such rules. California's expert could only identify

The panel stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that hundreds of railroad existed in the 19th century. It is bizarre.

RT @aarmark: Talkers Heavy 100 AAR is LIVE, AUDIO ONLY TODAY w/ @ht_gunwriter Lee Williams @2afdn

To be fair, in the very next section, the panel says it is explicitly NOT doing that, rejecting that the government can ban carry everywhere that it is the proprietor. But given what it just said previously, it's not clear why not.

The panel seems to endorse the idea that government can ban carry on all its property. While saying Bruen does not "necessarily" endorse this, it's not clear where the limit would be.

It is very frustrating when courts pretend they do not understand reality, or are so used to having professional security they have lost touch with what regular people deal with. Someone getting off a train, pulling out a gun, and reassembling it may have been fine at a train

The panel focuses on its "crowded place" analogy, while ignoring a major difference between carry before 1900 and carry today in a state like Illinois: carry permits. Illinois, like California and Hawaii, has no constitutional carry. So those who carry are vetted by the

Like the Ninth Circuit in Wolford, the panel focuses in on rare local ordinances, in this case an 1817 New Orleans ordinance banning carry in public ballrooms. But Bruen rejected two state laws as insufficient to justify carry bans, because they were outliers. Whenever courts

The panel says that even though the "in terror of the people" laws were different in that they did not ban carry, they still stood for the "principle" of banning carry in crowded places. Except they didn't. They banned a criminal act in a crowded place, at best. If this is how

But public transport has existed throughout our nation's history. What began as carriages in the founding era later became trains in the 19th century. What was lacking is any restrictions on carrying in these places.

The panel cites one of SAF’s other cases, May v. Bonta (which was consolidated with Wolford on appeal), and implies that the Illinois ban survives because it does allow an exception for unloaded and secured firearms, which California’s law did not.

One small positive tidbit in this ruling is that the panel turned away the government’s argument that plaintiff’s lacked standing because even if they defeated the law they challenge, other rules still bar them from carrying on public transport. The standing analysis is lengthy,

A bit of a sidenote, but it’s interesting that one of the plaintiffs got mooted out by becoming a police officer. The panel does not dwell at all on why an off-duty police officer should have special carry privileges over and above regular citizens with CCW permits. It should

From the start, the panel appears to be misleading. In the 19th century, trains absolutely existed, and no state that we know of banned carry on them. A few of the train companies had rules requiring guns be stored locked up, but most did not. And regardless, private company