At a time when we in the United States find the Second Amendment challenged on any number of levels, most certainly in blue states like Fornicalia, and when any number of citizens in Europe wish they had their own version of the Second Amendment, there comes the occasional federal ruling chalked up into the “win” column.
Federal court strikes down DC anti-concealed carry law
by Josh Delk
A federal appeals court reportedly ruled on Tuesday that a Washington, D.C., law requiring people to prove they have “proper reason” for a concealed-carry gun permit is unconstitutional.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the law, which requires people to show “proper reason to fear injury” in order to carry a firearm, is unconstitutional and a violation of D.C. residents’ Second Amendment rights.
Let’s remember this, shall we? The DC Court of Appeals is the secondmost powerful courtin the nation, directly behind SCOTUS.
According to the law, acceptable reasons to get a permit included jobs that required employees to protect valuables or if an individual had been threatened.
Hello? Earth to Common Sense? For once we appear to be communicating.
Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment
by Eugene Volokh
From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Yes. You read that right. This was a unanimous decision, 8 to 0 (Neil Gorsuch was not on the court when the case was argued). The US Supreme Court incontrovertibly and undeniably upheld our right to free speech. Even the Leftists.
How sad to think that I would — even for one moment — be concerned about this case, as clear to me as it appeared.
And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.
In other words, speech that simply makes you “uncomfortable” and prompts you to head for your “safe space” is still protected speech in these United States of America, no matter what anyone happens to say or think on US college campuses.
I wonder, however, what would happen if I were to attempt to register “The Crackas” as my band’s trademark when it consisted of all Caucasoids?
Oh yes. This: not one fuck given or one shit proffered.
GOWPs. Guilty Overeducated White People.
Even Noam Chomsky believes in free speech, and on campuses.
My final comment: were you aware that the United States of America is one of the very, very few Western Civilization countries left that does not have a “hate speech” law guaranteeing prosecution of that vastly nebulous phrase?
This is the continuation of a series of posts dealing with issues where some individuals in the United States government are attempting to hold at least a portion of the rest of the federal government accountable and responsible for its actions and inactions. The public displays we find, however, are not unlike the most bizarre of Kabuki Theater or Theater of the Absurd.
Here, the late Justice Antonin Scalia speaks with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday regarding originalism, textualism, purposivism and gun control.
This is just 1/9th of 1/3rd of our government confirming and upholding our basic freedoms. Further, let me state: this is the best of our government in action. Our government at work. What we pay it to do.
Please remember, ladies and gentlemen, these are your federal tax dollars either
My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.
Featured in the Saloon tonight was the White Mamba, Esq., The Official Attorney of the Berserk Bobcat Saloon, otherwise known at TOABBS. Because of his lawyerliness (yes, that is an official word), I asked him to weigh in on the recent events of the US Supreme Court this week, to include the opinion on the Trump travel ban and two other important SCOTUS cases.
Tonight in the Saloon:
“I’d like to have an argument, please,” at the Argument Clinic;
“I could be arguing in my spare time.”
Jealousy: a buddy is moving to Montana; I’m not. That says it all. Harumph!
CNN is having a bad week; schadenfreude returns with a vengeance;
Shuckie-darn, 3 CNN Fake Newsies resign, axed by CNN CEO Jeff Zucker;
Three things more trusted than CNN:
—- Breast milk from Bruce Jenner;
—- Unprotected sex with Madonna;
—- Having a drink with Bill Cosby;
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas skewers CNN; they admit they are Fake News;
CNN does NOT refute the Project Veritas video; that bespeaks volumes;
White Mamba, Esq opines on all things SCOTUS;
Demorats register the “wrong dead people” in Virginia;
Judge Napolitano: Loretta Lynch could do serious prison time;
Piers Morgan skewers Muslim London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.
If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please likewise click on start.
New programming note: beginning this Thursday, June 29th, Dan Butcher of High Plains Pundit fame will be featured as a regular guest every Thursday night here in the Saloon. I am pleased to welcome Dan to the show because he himself is such a stellar media figure. You can find him here at High Plains Pundit, here at High Plains Talk Radio, here on Facebook, and here on Twitter. Don’t miss Dan’s intelligent and insightful commentary, live and direct from the Lone Star state of Texas, every Thursday in the Saloon.
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin(on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.
Big cases, retirement rumors as Supreme Court nears finish
by Mark Sherman
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground.
The biggest news of all, though, would be if Justice Anthony Kennedy were to use the court’s last public session on Monday to announce his retirement.
I received information in January of this year that another opening was coming for 2017 following Antonin Scalia’s passing, which was filled by Neil Gorsuch. Imagine that. Turns out I’m likely correct.
Statistically speaking, let’s remember that two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy, are in their 80s, and Justice Stephen Breyer is 78. I call that a clue.
Overall, Demorats have taken a few blows recently. They are in a significant kerfuffle. You know: disarray. Confusion. Even insanity as, reading the news, you see they are doubling down on what hasn’t worked. They are leaning into the punches. Yay team.
Even the New York Times, the old Gray Lady herself, bleeding readers and hemorrhaging advertisers, admits The Donald is winning. As “bad” as he is, Hillary Clinton was obviously worse and continues to be so. Her saliva still breaches Demorat decks and hulls not unlike that of the Alien creature.
Demorats are 0 for 4 in recent special elections yet, listening to them and to their paid cheering section, the American Media Maggots, they had it all in the bag because these elections were going to be a “referendum against Trump.” $23 million dollars was spent on the Jon Ossoff election in Georgia, the most expensive House race in history. George Soros money. Leftist money. Celebrity Leftist money. Cash from everywhere except the contested district. Despite all that, Republican Karen Handel handed Ossoff his own head.
Speaking of AMM cheerleaders for Leftists, Newt Gingrich suggests:
Newt Gingrich speaks the truth: “We need to give up the term news media — call them ‘propaganda media’ and strip them of their credibility!” pic.twitter.com/zuce7dVTCL
Shockingly, the NY Times in a brief clear-headed manner writes under Maureen Dowd:
Democrats cling to an idyllic version of a new progressive America where everyone tools around in electric cars, serenely uses gender-neutral bathrooms and happily searches the web for the best Obamacare options. In the Democrats’ vision, people are doing great and getting along.
The Demorats are still following Hillary Clinton’s “it’s my turn, dammit, because I’ve paid the dirty political price to get here no matter my song, no matter my content.” Demorats hate that they still have to represent the little people, the proles, the serfs, the groundlings, the rabble, the unilluminated and unwashed in the inconsequential flyover states. They hate that they still have to represent a few Caucasoids. They hate that they still have to realize there is actually a pitiful smattering of life outside the DC Beltway or New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or San Francisco. They hate that they can’t attend even more cocktail parties in DC or tool around in larger limousines or spend with no limitations whatsoever. They hate that they may appear to be a bit responsible for their decisions though, thankfully, they haven’t fully gotten there yet.
In the meantime they have Russia and they have identify politics and they have Russia and they have race and they have Russia and they have gender and they have Russia and they control all the -ists extant.
What, truly, are the Demorats? They are the Party of No.
A few final points.
1. The Demorats made a rather stupid mistake by insisting the Republicans push they so-called nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees, thinking they would do no such thing. 51 is now the magic number. Button pushed.
2. With Neil Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench, the Supreme Court is mostly back to where it was when Scalia was alive; that is to say, with Kennedy being a bit of a major pendulum.
3. If a second opening occurs — and it will — resulting in President Trump’s installation of a true applier of law instead of a shill for Leftists, momentum will move to the right in terms of decisions.
4. Notice a trend? I do. It’s only 2017. What do you think the possibilities are that, between now and, say, 2019 or 2020 another Supreme Court justice retires? I’d wager the likelihood is rather high.
5. If Trump acquires a third nomination and keeps the Senate, the Supreme Court will be more conservative for at least another generation. Case closed.