search
top

More Wins for SAF & Alan Gura

A federal court in Massachusetts has struck down Massachusetts’ practice of denying pistol licenses to permanent resident aliens. I wonder whether our opponents have noticed while they’ve been busy exploiting another shooting, we’ve still been quietly winning victories. Is it just me, or does it seem like we’re having more success in District Court these days?

5 Responses to “More Wins for SAF & Alan Gura”

  1. mikee says:

    I know it is silly, but every time I hear the phrase “permanent alien resident” I think of the Prawns from District 9. And they had some darn cool weapons, too.

    • Harold says:

      Hey, that the sort of thing I initially thought many many years ago when they ran public service TV ads reminding aliens to make their annual visit to INS or whatever. Don’t remember the details (might not have been permanent residents), but since this was during the race to the moon or thereabouts….

  2. Patrick says:

    Awesome wins, but the timing is more interesting. Four cases all in short order is an awful coincidence.

    Now we’re looking at some interesting appellate cases coming up, especially in the 4th and 7th Circuits. The 4th is home to Chester (intermediate scrutiny for criminals and strict for the lawful, and declared a framework for analysis that uses originalist intent) and Masciandaro (written by an anti-gun judge who called Scalia a fool for Heller but still would not go so far as to say the right does not exist outside the home…he just whined about the horror of it all).

    The anti-gun judge in the 4th told its district judges to avoid answering the ‘outside the home’ question unless they had no choice. Well, three have since spoken and answered the question in our favor. Two invalidated state statutes (MD and NC) as unconstitutional. The 4th is going to be a busy and interesting place this year.

    The 7th gave us Ezell (gun ranges protected at “almost” strict scrutiny due to their proximity to the core of 2A rights). They also produced a test based on originalism much like the one in the 4th and Heller/McDonald. Since then we have multiple judges in IL doing anything they can to avoid these tests, or “Two Stepping” the analysis in obtuse ways.

    Now contrast this with the 9th (Peruta, et al.) and the 1st (remains to be seen). We got some circuit splits coming up. Also, don’t forget Peterson in the 10th. Already argued and hopefully we should have something to talk about before this next Supreme Court session.

    We’re moving along. Good stuff.

  3. Phssthpok says:

    I wonder how this will affect those folks who still believe/argue that the Constitution applies *ONLY* to ‘U.S. Citizens’.

    • Alpheus says:

      That claim has always bothered me. The Constitution doesn’t grant anyone rights; rather, it merely attempts to protect rights that existed before the Constitution was written.

top