In Florida, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle has ruled that the federal law prohibiting people from possessing firearms inside post offices is unconstitutional. The ruling is based on the 2022 Supreme Court ruling New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen recognized a person’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
The case concerned Emmanuel Ayala, a U.S. Postal Service truck driver, who had a concealed weapons permit and held a Smith & Wesson 9mm handgun in a fanny pack for self-defense. When police tried to stop him, he ran and struggled with officers. While dismissing the possession count, Judge Mizelle left the charge on forcibly resisting arrest.
The provision at 18 U.S. Code § 930 states in part that “whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”
Judge Mizelle noted that the law stands in conflict with the Bruen decision. In the course of the litigation, the Justice Department conceded that “[t]here is no evidence of firearms being prohibited at post offices, specifically, or of postal workers being prohibited from carrying them, at the time of the founding.”
Indeed, the government acknowledged that relatively limited firearms prohibitions did not appear “until the mid-twentieth century—over 170 years after the founding.”
The court proceeded to lay out an extensive historical and policy review of the basis for such a ban. It also noted that the sweeping meaning of this provision:
[The] legal principle cannot be used to abridge the right to bear arms by regulating it into practical non-existence. See Baude & Leider, supra, at 35 (identifying this as “probably the most important [Second Amendment] principle”). For example, take the criminal statute here: It bans knowingly possessing a firearm in a Federal facility, which is defined as “a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 930(g)(1). The plain language captures everything from the White House to toll booths in national parks to Social Security Administration buildings. Under this criminal statute, with the proliferation of the federal government comes the diminution of the People’s right to bear arms. At some point, when twenty-eight percent of land in the United States is owned by the federal government and many ordinary activities require frequenting a “Federal facility,” the government’s theory would amount to a nullification of the Second Amendment right altogether.
Ultimately, despite allowing for supplemental briefing, Judge Mizelle expressed frustration with the Biden Administration’s use of generalities and unsupported claims to justify this rule: “I repeat the United States’ single line on this point: “Ayala certainly cannot show that the Second Amendment prevents the government from prohibiting its own employees from bringing guns to work.” Id. That is all. No citation, no authority, no reasoning.”
In the end, the court felt it had no alternative but to declare the law unconstitutional as inconsistent “with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Given the implications of this ruling (not just for postal facilities but all federal facilities), it could well make its way to the Supreme Court.
Jonathan: You know you have touched a raw nerve–judging by some of the reactions to my comment about Judge Mizelle. No legal analysis of her decision, just ranting and raving. “Old Airborne Dog” thinks I am an “evil disgusting little police state fascist for the Soviet Democrats and the Big Guy, Bribery Biden, goes by the name of Dennis McIntyre”…”You are a disgusting, evil little imitation of an American, or even of a human being,” [1/14@12:45 pm]. When you are called “evil” you know you have struck a nerve.
“Old Airborne Dog” has definitely gone “airborne”. He is like the junk yard dog that jumps, barks and snarls at anything that moves. Good thing he on a chain. That’s where “Old Airborne Dog” belongs!
Denise,
I generally make it a point of not reading your comments but I do read those who respond to yours, like John Say or Lin’s epic take downs of your comments, pointing out how wrong you are. It is fun!
But in this case, Old Airborne Dog’s assessment of you is quite accurate and spot on.
To Old Airborne Dog, good on ya! Keep up the good fight against evil as Airborne!
UpState Farmer, compare paragraph by paragraph, line by line, word by word, comments by DM and Svelaz / Wally / Gigi / elvis bug / Bob / Concerned Citizen / troll of a thousand sock puppets: same verbiage, same whine, same sophomoric sentence structure, same troll.
David Brock was once said to be batshlt crazy by Clinton operative, Leon Panetta, rightly so. Democrats ran away from Brock because his online assaults on Republicans was nucken futs even if he was trolling Republicans to help Democrats. David Brock passed his organization “Media Matters” to an equally nucken futs young gay leftist by the name of Angelo Carusone. Under the leadership of Carusone, Elon Musk sue Media Matters for posting on Twitter fake accusations regarding associations with Nazis, pretending to represent a large chorus of critics of Musk by scores of sock puppet Twitter accounts, and spending money from Leftwing organizations so as to bring down Elon Musk and his ad base. If any of this looks familiar as to what takes place on this blog daily by scores of sock puppets, that is not an accident. Professor Turley was recently swatted, he has received countless threats by the Left, and the organization of Media Matters likely clogs his blog with fake accusations, pretending to represent a large chorus of critics, and so forth.
It’s PSYOP
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their motives and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and large foreign powers.
-Wiki
NB: David Brock has been accused of many foul things but never was he accused of being intelligent. Angelo Carusone is deciles of IQ points below Brock, which is say a lot.
Elon Musk’s X follows through with ‘thermonuclear lawsuit’ against Media Matters
https://nypost.com/2023/11/20/business/elon-musks-x-sues-media-matters-after-report-about-ads-next-to-antisemitic-content/
“This is a frivolous lawsuit meant to bully X’s critics into silence,” the non-profit’s president, Angelo Carusone, said in a prepared statement.
Also on Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced his office was launching an investigation into “radical left-wing” Media Matters for potential fraudulent activity tied to the same report.
“We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square,” he said in a statement.
NB: the comment above by Angelo employs verbiage similar to that used by Peter Shill / Svelaz / Dennis / Gigi, et al …..
I agree with everything you said except that DM is not one of those sock puppets. He is an entirely other league of troll.
And he is a real person. He lives in Rusk, TX. He has been the target of a child pornography investigation in Cherokee County for years. The DA there has strong evidence that Dennis has been cornholing his 11 year old nephew since he was 8, but refuses to prosecute.
He may also be employed by media matters but his narcissistic, egotistical, self righteous, self aggrandizing, TDS infested rants are far and away more than the simple minded Svelaz, Gigi, turdrunner, wally, fishy breath, sammy and lawn boy trolls are capable of. And Bob, he’s just an honest moron. Lawn boy might be too, but his drunk rants make it hard to tell.
Hit a little nerve, did he?
Gun control laws both in ownership and in use have caused many many times more deaths and mayhem than following the text of our highest law ever did.
Jonathan: Speaking of “packing services” some in Texas want to pack up and leave the Union. Gov. Abbott is reviving the old slogan “Save your Confederate money the South will rise again!”. Tomorrow is MLK Day but Abbott rather honor Gen. Robert E. Lee and rebel President Jefferson Davis on “Confederate Heroes Day”–a controversial celebration that many Texans want to do away with.
Gov. Abbott is definitely at war with the Union. In defiance Abbott keeps ending busloads of migrants to Northern cities. Show them! He has removed Black history lessons from state school textbooks. He is at war with DEI which he considers a form of “Northern aggression”. Abbott is outraged by the renaming of US military bases. He wants to honor Texas resident Lt. General John Bell Hood, who led the Confederate army. Hood said the Union’s goal was to “make Negroes your allies, and desire to place an inferior race over us…Better die a thousand deaths then submit to lives under your or your government and your Negro allies”. So much for the argument by some on this blog that the Civil War was really not about slavery! In Texas, under Abbott, any talk about cancelling the “Confederate Heroes Day” is viewed as heresy–labelling such calls as part of the Northern “woke” agenda.
So I ask my loyal supporters on this blog. Do you think Texas should succeed? Personally, I say let Texas go their own way. Give every Texan resident 5 years to move back to the Union. Pull out every last US resource out of Texas (military bases, soldiers, etc.) Let Texas see what its like without $68.2 billion in federal funding!
Jonathan: What we witnessed this week was a charade in the public hearing chaired by Jim Comer. Hunter Biden and his attorney, Abbe Lowell, showed up and challenged Comer to let Hunter testify in open session. When the Dems asked for a show of hands to let Hunter testify not one MAGA Republican raised their hands. They are cowards–afraid of what Hunter might say under oath.
Then on Tuesday, Hunter’s art dealer, Georges Berges, was called to testify behind closed doors before the Comer’s Committee. And what did he have to say? Berges told the Committee he did not disclose the identity of any of the buyers to Hunter who learned about them through public reporting. He also said he had no contact with the WH and no evidence of wrongdoing by the President. Another strike-out by Comer.
Not satisfied Comer now wants one of the purchasers of Hunter’s work, Elizabeth Naftali, to testify. In a letter last year to Comer, Naftali’s attorney said his client purchased Hunter’s artwork “solely because she liked the art”–adding that “never at any time did she have direct or indirect contact with anyone at the White House regarding any art purchase”.
So far Comer has reached nothing but dead ends in his pursuit of the Biden family. Just spurious claims about “corruption” that have eluded him. It’s time for Comer to stop wasting time pursuing the Biden family, fold up his tent and move on to the real issues important to the American people!
Lets get some FACTS straight. Absent an immunity deal Hunter Biden will not testify under oath anywhere EVER.
Nor will his lawyers allow him to do so – no matter what might be said.
You are confusing political theater with legal reality.
The entire purpose of all of this is to box Hunter into pleading the 5th. But everyone has to go through the motions of pretending that he will actually testify.
Contra your claims – what occured in the Hunter Contempt hearing was a STUNT pulled by Hunter, and it went incredibly badly for him.
There is video, your claims are refuted by that Video
Rep. Mace sought to have Hunter taken into custody by the Sargent at Arms and brought to the witness table for questioning under oath.
The decision as to whether that testimony was to be immediate, or later, public or private rests with the house committee – Not the witness,
Not his lawyers. That is true regarding Hunter, it is true regarding other witnesses.
Congress only negotiates the terms of testimony where there is a question of privelege. Where there is a question of priviledge, either the congress and the executive work out terms, or congress goes to court and gets a court order resolving the question of priviledge.
There is no presidents son privilege.
A democrat repeatedly both rudely and in violation of house rules and parlementary procedures constantly interrupted re.p Mace, Refusing to allow her to speak on her own time.
There was no “show of hands”.
There was no efffort by Lowell to have Hunter Testify there and now,
There was no motion by Democrats to do so.
When Rep. Greene attempted to question Hunter. Hunter FLED.
On his way out Hunter was cornered by Reporters and asked a number of questions – some stupid, some not.
Hunter made the mistake of answering one of those and was quickly cornered by the reporter.
While your Claims are all entirely bogus. Even if they were correct – that is not how it works.
When you are subpeoned to testify, you have two choices:
Show up.
Go to court and show cause why the Subpeona should be quashed.
If you are subpeoned, and fail to show, you will be found in contempt and likely a bench warrant will be issued.
You are free to try to negotiate the conditions of your testimony with whoever subpeoned you.
But absent their being willing to accomodate your issues or wishes – we are back to
Show up or Go to court to quash.
There is not an ignore the subpeona choice.
Further there is not an “I will only testify in public” or an “I will only testify in private”.
John Say,
Epic take down of Dennis!
Well done!
The whole event was stupid. I am surprised that Lowell went along with it.
I would love to be proven wrong. But anyone who thinks that Hunter Biden is ever testifying under oath is betting that Hunter and his lawyers will be unbelievably stupid.
There are only three probable outcomes to this political theater.
Hunter pleased the 5th.
Hunter is held in contempt.
Hunter gets an immunity deal from congress in return for testimony.
I would note this is also true of the various indictments.
It is very damaging politically for Hunter to plead the 5th.
An immunity deal is even more danagerous – if you have immunity, you can not lie, and you can not take the 5th.
I would further note that a Guilty plea has similar problems. The more I think about it the more the tanking of the earlier deal was inevitiable.
If Hunter pleads guilty – Especially to the blanket deal that his lawyers claimed he has, then Hunter can no longer take the 5th.
The political Game being played by the Biden’s is to try to avoid anyone taking the 5th prior to the election,
And to try to avoid Joe having to pardon anyone prior to the election.
I would further note that While Republicans are likely to move quickly to impeach Mayorkas, They are likely to deliberately move slow regarding The Biden’s.
If Republicans had Video of Joe Biden receiving envelopes of cash from Chinese spy’s – they would likely delay releasing it until after the Democratic convention. The Republican objective is to Knee Cap Biden. But to do so such that Democrats have as little time to bring another candidate in as possible.
Republicans are also striving to make the DOJ look as politically biased as possible – which is why they will find hunter in contempt.
Democrats are running their own political theater. But it is NOT working.
We can fight over presidential immunity all we want – though it would be wise to take that debate out of the context of Trump.
Democrats and democrat judges seem poised to make decisions on presidential immunity that will effect all future presidents.
But the actual issue is – Can democrats try and convict Trump before the election (and if they do will it make him less popular).
It is likely that the DC case is dead – the immunity claim is unlikely to get through SCOTUS before the election.
The 14th amendment question is unlikely to be resolved in Democrats favor.
I hope that SCOTUS uses these oportunites to make GOOD law – again – Forget Trump and try to work out what is best.
But Trump is not mostly focused on what the law should be. He is not even focused on Winning. Just delaying the cases.
They likely will all be dropped after the election regardless.
And the situation has just gotten worse as the GA case is now pretty much int he crapper.
Trump has filed an immunity appeal there. That will get merged witht he DC appeal and everything will be stalled.
But separately Willis has stepped in it. The recent filing alleging that Willis is having a affair with a person she appointed as special prosecutor, that she is approving his pay, and that she is going with him on expensive vacations. And that she has appointed him improperly under the best of circumstances stalls the case for a month or more.
And more likely effectively ends it until after the election – or forever.
Both Willis and the Special prosecutor as well as Willis’s entire office will likely be conflicted out of the case.
It is probable that it will be transfered to another county and the next prosecutor will drop it.
Regardless, this will take time.
Separetly Willis will likely face disciplinary action – and probably prosecution for a long list of misuse of power crimes.
The GA AG has been circling Willis for some time. It is likely that prosecuting Trump made it harder for the GA AG to go after Willis.
But this makes it easy.
This was a stupid mistake.
In other news – Inflation was up0 again, likely stalling Fed efforts to lower interest rates.
@John Say,
Hunter’s antics were an attempt to belittle the Republican run committee.
It was a stupid thing to do, and has blown up in his face.
His lawyer isn’t that smurt [sic] either.
Showing up was a challenge and an attempt to say that ‘Here I am.’ I’ll testify in public, the subpoena you sent me was unlawful so I could just ignore it.
Of course this is dead wrong. He’s trying to win in the court of public opinion. which is also failing hence the request for a second subpoena as a way to save face instead of admitting he was wrong in dodging the first one.
He will either say he can’t recall, or will plead the 5th.
-G
Ian,
Watching Hunter run out of the room when facing MTG was hysterical!
John, Do you think the votes will be there to quickly impeach Mayorkas given Turley’s public opposition that it does not meet the constitutional standards and the slim Republican majority?
Upstate,
Its DENISE. 😛
John Say’s post is spot on, not too long…
-G
Ian,
Ah! I stand corrected! Thank you good sir!
Name-calling is so mature.
But its name is Denise.
Elizabeth Naftali can say that under oath.
For years we were told that Hunters artwork was being sold at arms length. That Hunter had no idea who the buyers were
That where were protocols in place to prevent infliuence pedalling.
Yet when the Galarist that Hunter hired to sell his art testified all that turned our to be unequivocally false.
I would note that Naftali is a particularly interesting case – because she was seeking a policy making position, and was appointed to that position shortly after buying a picture from Hunter.
She is also significant because it appears she is the only person beside the lawyer that paid off Hunters taxes that has bought any wart work.
It is virtually certain that Elizabeth Naftali will expose several more lies told by the Biden’s and the WH.
She MIGHT expose further crimes.
Regardless, Elizabeth Naftali is NOT a private person who bought Hunters art.
She is a federal political appointee in a policy making position. Congress can subpena her with ease.
John Say,
Again, another good analysis and break down of the situation.
I have to admit, it has been fun watching the meltdown of the Biden admin in light of their lies about Hunter’s artwork/influence peddling scam.
Only true devote cult zealot leftists would continue to defend the BCF.
To which I say, thank you. Thank you for showing us all your true devote cult zealot zeal for all to see.
Dennis,
Not sure if you saw this letter from Abbe Lowell to Comer a couple of days ago, arguing “the November 8 and 9, 2023, deposition subpoenas to Mr. Biden and the contempt resolutions approved by your committees on January 10, 2024, based on those subpoenas were and are legally invalid,” as Comer had no authority to issue an impeachment subpoena prior to the vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry, and stating “If you issue a new proper subpoena, now that there is a duly authorized impeachment inquiry, Mr. Biden will comply for a hearing or deposition. We will accept such a subpoena on Mr. Biden’s behalf”:
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/letter-from-a-lowell-to-chairmen-comer-and-jordan-hunter-biden-contempt-subpoenas-january-12-2024.pdf
Comer and Jordan respond today that they’ll issue new subpoenas:
They say “Although the Committee’s subpoenas are lawful and remain legally enforceable,” disputing Lowell’s claim, “as an accommodation to Mr. Biden and at your request, we are prepared to issue [new] subpoenas compelling Mr. Biden’s appearance at a deposition on a new date in the coming weeks.”
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-01-14-jdj-jc-to-lowell-re-new-subpoena-for-hb.pdf
Anonymous: I didn’t see the letter but I did read the reporting. Thx for the link.
You’re welcome.
“. . . let Hunter testify in open session.”
It’s called a *subpoena*. Not a smorgasbord.
It’s still illegal to shoot people in most cases, right?
These anti-carry laws are schoolmarm laws, we’ll take your right to do something so that you can’t do something else that you aren’t supposed to do. democrats hate these laws because they know their base, inner city thugs and anti-depressant laden middle class white women have no self-discipline, which is why, otoh, they love abortion and no bail.
dems love these schoolmarm laws and hate anti-abortion and bail
Any diversity (i.e. color judgment, class bigotry) taxonomy or minority report is antithetical to the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
You mean the Constitution that counted enslaved persons as 3/5 for purposes of allocating Representatives?
That was the northerner’s idea. Now they count them at 5/3rds.
Now I am hopefully awaiting some conservative judges will rule that “Hate Speech” laws, government unions and all restrictions on 2nd amendment rights are also found to be unconstitutional. So much of what the prog/left has initiated since Woodrow Wilson was a pup could be rolled back if judges at all levels understood the constitution and could rule without adherence to prog/left ideology but just a strict interpretation of our constitution as written.
Jonathan: Who is US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle? She was nominated by DJT in 2020 and confirmed by the Senate by a 49-41 vote. Not exactly a resounding endorsement. Even some Republicans opposed her nomination. Why? Because she was only 33 and had never tried a case. The ABA rated her “not qualified” because she had not been practicing law long enough. No matter to DJT. She is a member of the right-wing Federalist Society, supports right-wing causes and clerked for Clarence Thomas. Mizelle calls Thomas the “greatest living American”. With that pedigree she was guaranteed an appointment by DJT.
With that background it is understandable Mizelle would be a big supporter of gun rights. But her position in the Ayala case doesn’t make sense. Under her reasoning and logic and interpretation of Bruen, anyone should be able to carry a loaded weapon in any federal facility–a federal courtroom, an FBI office, inside the WH or the Capitol. One can only imagine what would happened on Jan.6 had the insurrectionists been allowed to carry Glocks into the Capitol building. But under Michelle’s logic that should have been permitted.
I think Mizelle’s tortured reasoning will ultimately be overturned on appeal. But the fact you applaud her decision indicates your position on gun rights. No limits on the right to pack guns–anywhere and any time. Explain that to the Capitol police who fought off the insurrectionists, WH police whose duty is to protect the President or court personnel who have to protect judges, their clerks and the public!
If she was a black democrat, she’d be on the SCOTUS short list.
Jan 6 was a protest against our criminal government and even according to the Leftist DOJ’s sycophants of the FBI, no where near an insurrection. Moreover, protester firearms played no part in the scuffle. In fact, the only firearm involved was that of a racist Capitol cop and coward, Lt. Michael Byrd, who blatantly– without warming and in cold blood— shot and killed an unarmed woman, Ashli Babbitt, for allegedly ‘trespassing’. (He was later promoted to ‘Captain’ for his sinister deed). TDS is a serious affliction and most probably lethal. In any event, do yourself a favor and seek help—-quick!
Mizelle’s reasoning is not “tortured”. IT is precisely what Scotus dictated for 2nd Amendment cases in Bruin.
NY Riffle and Pistle V Bruin established the rule for the constitutionality of laws restricting gun rights as
“the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition.”
Until the Supreme court modifies Bruin that is the standard.
This is not the only Post Bruin case where federal judges – often those on the left have ruled in favor of 2A rights.
There has actually been a plethora of 2A cases – many of which are headed to SCOTUS.
Near universally they have gone one of two ways – as in the 9th Circuit where the 9th Ct of appeals has been trying to delay lower court ruling striking down gun laws on 2A grounds hoping against hope that SCOTUS will modify Bruin.
As in many other circuits where gun laws have been struck down and are now headed for SCOTUS.
I suspect that SCOTUS will narrow Bruin slightly, but for now Mizelle’s decision is the only possible decisions consistent with the direction of the Supreme court on 2A cases.
Contra your Claim Mizelle is demonstrating that she is imminently qualified and properly understands here role.
Should SCOTUS narrow Bruin, you can count on Judge Mizelle to follow whatever modification the supreme court imposes.
The law that the prosecutors sought to enforce was a general law, and it was inarguably unconstitutional as such.
The Biden administrations argument that the government as an employer can restrict gun posession – might well be accepted by the Supreme court. But that is NOT the law the administration was enforcing. Further when the government acts as an employer it can not impose criminal sanctions. The govenrment MIGHT be able to fire employees who carry while in federal employment, but it can not jail them.
Again Mizelle got this correct.
Scotus is free to change the state of the law and constitution.
Judge Mizelle is not free to ignore the clear direction of SCOTUS
“had the insurrectionists‘“ Please cite a case where ANYONE was charged with insurrection. Just to help you out, it is federal crime, so no matter what any State accuses anyone of the charge, it is just to garner headlines.
At least 2 people on January 6 were charged with insurrection, termed seditious conspiracy under federal law.
Trump responded later that day by saying he “loved” them (the Insurrectionists).
Dennis McIntyre, Bribery Biden’s fellow Soviet Democrat police state fascist version of Baghdad Bob, wailed in feigned despair: Jonathan: Who is US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle? She was nominated by DJT in 2020 and confirmed by the Senate by a 49-41 vote. Not exactly a resounding endorsement.
Dennis McIntyre/Baghdad Bob, is what the ugly hypocrisy of police state fascism running through the Soviet Democrats looks like. Without double standards, Dennis/Baghdad Bob wouldn’t have any standards.
Dennis/Baghdad Bob, crowed with delight when Bribery Biden told Lisa Monaco to bring back Jack Smith to prosecute Trump – the political hitman for Bolshevik Barack and Bribery Biden who took out their opponents before their reelection campaign. The fact that Smith was overwhelmingly overturned in every one of those prosecutions – unanimously by SCOTUS in one – didn’t bother Dennis/Baghdad Bob when Smith was appointed the supposedly impartial prosecutor to get Trump.
Didn’t bother our resident police state fascist Dennis that the other prosecutors – all fellow Soviet Democrats – that have charged Trump got elected specifically on the promise they would get Trump. Not a hint of political influence there – like he howls must be present with Judge Mizelle.
Dennis/Baghdad Bob cackles like one of the Stygian Witches that the January 6th rioters all appear in front of Judges appointed by Bolshevik Barack/Bribery Biden. But Judge Mizelle leaves him wailing in despair.
Behind every Stalin, every Mao, every Hitler, every Saddam Hussein totalitarian, there are their evil twisted little police state fascist apparatchiks that carry their messages. Here, the evil disgusting little police state fascist for the Soviet Democrats and The Big Guy, Bribery Biden, goes by the name of Dennis McIntyre.
You are a disgusting, evil little imitation of an American, or even of a human being, Dennis McIntyre/Baghdad Bob.
DM – if the Bar rates a lawyer as unqualified who has clerked for a supreme court justice – that states Bar has proven itself corrupt.
You can claim that Clerking for a supreme court justice is a reflection of someones political views – though must justices including Thomas seek out clerks with differing views. A justices clerk is the person they are going to have the most oportunity to debate a case with.
Regardless, getting to clerk for ANY supreme court justice is incredibly difficult.
You are not only the best of the best. But you had to graduate at the top of your class from one of the top- 10 law schools in the country.
You had to clerk for another Federal Judge for a year – and not ANY judge but one of the “feeder” judges. The competition for feder clerkships is intense. The competition for feeder judges is more so. And after clerking for a feeder judge you STILL need a glowing recomendation from them just to get on the short list. where you are sitll maybe one of ten for a supreme court clerkship.
My Wife clerked for a Federal Judge – Only the top 1% of graduates from the nations top law schools get a shot at that.
She very nearly got a clerkship with a feeder judge – she made the short list of 3 candidates.
If as you say Mizelle clerked for ANY supreme court justice – she is eminently qualified to be a federal judge.
“Under her reasoning and logic and interpretation of Bruen, anyone should be able to carry a loaded weapon in any federal facility–a federal courtroom, an FBI office, inside the WH or the Capitol. ”
That would depend on the weapons laws that our founders actually had in the decades before the constitution through to slightly after the 14th amendment.
I know this is hard fo rleft wing nuts to grasp – but our founders DID impose some weapons laws. Those form the guide as to what the people who wrote the 2nd amendment intended. It is Not necescary to prove that the specific law that is being imposed existed in 1800, only that similar restrictions existed. It is not necescary to prove that every state or the federal govenrment had such laws, only to prove that some states had such laws and they were not found unconstitutional.
I would note that SCOTUS has already found SOME gun control legislation constitutional under Bruin. Just not all.
Dennis, Planet Sedna just got a zip code. They need postal workers just like you.
I suppose that our latest SCOTUS was even more qualified – h*ll she couldn’t even define what a woman was – a little bit short on the IQ level and a political racist also. I don’t think the American public truly wants to hear criticism of appointments made by Trump when we have a clown college of radical DEI freaks running our nation (see FAA search for severely mentally handicapped workers).
Hard to see how a ban in Federal (or state and local) buildings could amount to “nullification” of the 2A. That having been said, Bruen requires a tradition of similar regulation, and it appears the Government could not show that. At the moment, this is just a District Court judgement, with limited impact. Appeal could expand it, first to the relevant Circuit and then, if it goes to the Supreme Court, nationally. From the left’s perspective, this may not be a good one to appeal.
For better or worse, I think the Bruen historical test is almost impossible to meet.
And yet it has been met. SCOTUS has already found some regulations meet the test.
There were as an example laws regarding the combination of guns and intoxication.
John, In your above comments, what scotus decisions post Bruen are you referring to that have survived the Bruen test? In Bruen itself, it wasn’t enough for the majority when the cited only a couple of historical examples. Anyway, I hope you are right that the Bruen historical test can be met in practice and that it’s seen as workable.
“Hard to see how a ban in Federal (or state and local) buildings could amount to “nullification” of the 2A. “
Shall not be infringed. Anything contrary to that is nullification of 2A
Dear Prof Turley,
If this makes it way to the SCOTUS, I bet they’ll all be packing.
Obviously, it is better to have ‘a gun and not it than to need a gun a not have it.’ Of course, it is best not to need a gun at all . .. except for squirrels and such.
‘When you control the mail, you control information’ ~ Newman
*going postal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7ApHL1xi9U
dgsnowden,
“Of course, it is best not to need a gun at all”
If this were an ideal world, I would agree.
But it is far from that.
Hence, it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it at all.
UpstateFarmer,
We must be talking cross-purposes. I was practically born with a gun .. . even my swaddling cloths were camouflaged.
While we may be far, far from that ‘ideal’ world, it’s important to have something to ‘shoot’ for, so to speak. The president, e.g., has a big, big stick .. . but no one will ever accuse Joe Biden of ‘walking softly.’
*the ‘arc of history may be long, but it bends toward justice’ h/t MLK
dgsnowden,
I actually never touched a firearm till I enlisted in the USMC.
Then there was that fun fill vacation, deployment, to the sandbox. Has a interesting way of changing ones perspective on life when someone is actively taking pot shots at you with intent to kill or lobbing arty at ya. Good times!
Funny thing, I have been to a few US cities where I felt safer in Afghanistan then I did here. At least we were all “carrying” there.
I had a CCW in those cities. Pistols have their place, but I felt more comfortable with a rifle anytime.
“Funny thing, I have been to a few US cities where I felt safer in Afghanistan then I did here. At least we were all “carrying” there.”
Upstate, I am sure if Biden gets his chance he will deny our soldiers the right to carry.
Is there one courthouse (local, state or federal) in the United States that would allow a metal notebook, knife or gun?
Democrats support THUGS, so it is only natural that Republicans would support guns. With that support it is implied that you are responsible for your actions.
I’m required to go to the post office to get my mail. We have no home delivery despite living in a 120 year old town. So it’s either break the law for the 30 seconds it takes me to get the mail out of my box, or leave the firearm in my bike basket which probably is breaking another law, or forget concealed carry when I go to get my mail. I go for the third option, this place is safer than T bonds. But I shouldn’t have to make that choice. Drive my truck 3 blocks?
Maybe don’t be scared and leave the gun at home. You’re welcome.
Decades ago, it was a popular term. Gone postal, or went postal. Disarming their employees, became a difficult task.
I’m sure that Merrick Garland has already received his marching orders from the Democratic Party to appeal this decision.
Was this law passed when the the phrase “going postal” entered the HR lexicon?
After Bruen, if this makes it to the SC, and they rule in favor of judge Mizelle’s ruling, they just might make strengthen support and set additional precedent for the 2ndA.
I have never bought into the federal ban in federal facilities, and here is why as an exception to the law: “d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” I think carrying a gun under a concealed weapon regime qualifies as law purpose.
Basically it said if the prohibition wasnt present at the founding, its unconstitutional. In other words, any law written to restrict the right to keep and bear is in violation of “shall not be infringed”
It is a bit more complicated. The period before the founding through the late 1800’s is relevant.
The 14th amendment is relevant – the history of the 14th amendment is that it was specifically passed to extend the right to firearms to freed black slaves.
It’s a Post Office for god’s sake. It’s not a Tabernacle to Joe Biden or anyone else. It’s not a court room. I would say that with the history of post office workers “going postal”, it would seem to be wise to allow postal workers to carry their firearms for their own safety. Government offices, whether state, federal or local are not sacred and other than courts of law, where passions sometimes get heated, there is no reason to prohibit legitimate concealed carry permit holders to carry their firearms.
Health institutions also prohibit firearms but in almost every case I have seen, someone else brought the firearm into the facility, usually a disgruntled patient of family member. 2 occurred in institutions I worked at. I had a backpack I carried to work for personal items so I could have access to “protection” and luckily it was never searched. Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do.
Not so sure about this one. Maybe I read Bruen incorrectly