Conservatives, Liberals Unite On SCOTUS Gun Case

It has been said that "politics makes strange bedfellows" over the years.

But a Supreme Court case involving a pot-user's Second Amendment rights is now before the court. It appears that the justices might side with marijuana users. Conservatives and liberals seem united in defending a weed-smoker's Second Amendment rights.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported:

A Texas man’s case illustrates the potential for common ground between right-leaning critics of gun control and left-leaning critics of the war on drugs.

Under federal law, millions of Americans are committing felonies right now because they own guns and use marijuana, even if they live in states that have legalized the drug. There is nothing unconstitutional about that baffling situation, a Trump administration lawyer assured the Supreme Court on Monday, because cannabis consumers are analogous to “habitual drunkards,” who historically could be confined to workhouses or mental institutions.

Most of the justices, including both Republican and Democratic appointees, seemed skeptical of that claim. Their agreement reflected the trans-partisan alliances inspired by this case, which illustrates the potential for common ground between right-leaning critics of gun control and left-leaning critics of the war on drugs.

The case, which sits at the intersection of those two policies, involves Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was charged with illegal gun possession in 2023 after an FBI search of his home discovered a Glock 19 pistol, about 2 ounces of marijuana, and less than a gram of cocaine. Hemani admitted that the gun was his, and that he smoked marijuana a few times a week, which would have been enough to convict him.

To read the full article, go here. 

Cannabis + Guns Is Heading To SCOTUS

A number of Second Amendment and gun cases are heading to the U.S. Supreme Court this year. One of which is the federal law barring cannabis users from owning firearms. 

That will be an interesting case to follow as I know several gun owners who also use cannabis.

According to MSN:

The clash between federal gun law and the country’s fast‑changing cannabis landscape is about to land in front of the justices, and your rights could be caught in the middle. The Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case that asks whether the government can bar people who use marijuana from owning firearms, even when state law treats their cannabis use as legal. To understand what is really at stake, you need a clear view of the timeline, the legal arguments, and how this fight could reshape both Second Amendment doctrine and drug policy enforcement.

It is interesting that a right is barred if one uses marijuana. It is about as ridiculous as that one's First Amendment Right is barred if they use pot.

To read the full article, go here. 

SCOTUS Tackles Marijuana Use & Gun Rights

Currently under federal statute, a person who regularly uses marijuana cannot possess a firearm.

This goes against the Second Amendment's rights afforded to people. 

The Supreme Court will hear a case calling to question the constitutionality of the statute. 

Pew Pew Tactical posted:

More than 90 petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration, with the justices only agreeing to hear three – one of which will settle the debate on marijuana use and gun possession.

In a six-page orders list, the Supreme Court said it would hear United States v. Hemani – the only gun-related issue to be argued in front of justices this term.

The case aims to get to the bottom of whether federal statute 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. The statute currently prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who ‘is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.’

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS To Take Up Hawaii Gun Ban

Above, up to now, Hawaii is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to be a gun owner there. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

The state of Hawaii, like California, has a state government that is dominated by the Democrat Party. You know, the anti-Second Amendment party. 

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that they will take up Hawaii's concealed carry gun ban.

According to Gun Owners of America:

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up a case challenging a Hawaii law that bans concealed carry almost everywhere.

In 2022, when it handed down its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court settled one of the most important constitutional questions of our time: The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is protected under the Second Amendment.

That should have been the end of the matter. In Hawaii, however, lawmakers responded with defiance instead of compliance with their so-called carry law (Act 52). Even if you don’t live in Hawaii, be aware that it is doing what anti-gunners in your state would love to do.

Under this law, permit holders — people who have undergone mandatory training, passed background checks and followed every rule — are effectively barred from carrying a firearm almost anywhere. Parks, sidewalks, beaches, government property, banks and even most private property are all off-limits. A carry permit in Hawaii may as well be used to discard chewed-up gum.

To read more, go here.

Trump DOJ Supports Cuba Lawsuit Against Cruise Lines

Above, Havana's Sierra Maestra cruise terminal. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Politics, including international trade relations, sometimes makes strange bedfellows, even involving lawsuits.

The following article caught my attention by its headline, "Trump DOJ Supports Cuba Lawsuit Against Cruise Lines".

This involves dock facilities at Havana Port that were confiscated by Cuba's communist government. I took a cruise to Havana back in April 2019 and the ship, Majesty of the Seas of Royal Caribbean, used those dock facilities after our arrival. President Trump ended vacation cruises to Cuba in June 2019.

According to Seatrade Cruise News:

The US Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision that sided mostly with cruise lines sued for using Havana docks which had been confiscated by Cuba's communist government.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2024 ruled mostly in favor of cruise companies that were sued under under Title III of the Helms-Burton or Libertad Act which allows US nationals to seek compensation for property taken over by Cuba. The US national, Havana Docks, held a concession to operate facilities that were used by Carnival Corp., Royal Caribbean Group, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings and MSC Cruises.  

Appeals court decision

The appeals court determined the property of Havana Docks confiscated by Cuba was the concession right to operate and profit from the docks for 99 years, which was set to expire in 2004. The facilities were used by the cruise lines from 2016 to 2019. The court said Havana Docks did not own the real property but had the concession right to operate and benefit from the port.

Above, yours truly at Havana Port just after our arrival.

To read more, go here. 

NRA Files Amicus Brief In Challenge To Maine’s Waiting Period Law

The National Rifle Association (NRA) filed an amicus brief in a court case challenging the constitutionality of Maine's 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases. 

Other states have implemented in recent years waiting periods. Last year, for example, New Mexico implemented a seven-day waiting period for gun purchases.

The NRA reported:

On June 5, NRA filed an amicus brief in Beckwith v. Frey, a case challenging Maine’s 72-hour waiting period on firearm purchases.

In March, a federal district court ruled that the waiting-period law likely violates the Second Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. The government then appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. NRA filed its brief in the First Circuit, arguing that the waiting-period law is unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs should ultimately prevail on the merits of the case.

NRA’s brief argues that the Second Amendment’s plain text protects the right to possess arms, and that the right to possess arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. Therefore, under Supreme Court precedent, the government must justify the law by proving that it is consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

If the Supreme Court should rule (if the case reaches them) that the waiting period law is unconstitutional, that would effectively wipe out similar (and worse) laws in other states.

To read more, go here.

Gun Owners of America Lauds Mexico Smackdown By SCOTUS

Gun Owners of America issued a press release of the smackdown of Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers.

It reads in part:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

June 5, 2025 

Washington, D.C. – Gun Owners of America (GOA), alongside Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) and a nationwide coalition of Second Amendment advocates, is celebrating today’s 9-0 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting the Mexican government’s radical attempt to sue American gun manufacturers for cartel violence fueled by Mexico’s own failed disarmament policies. 

The case, Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, marked an unprecedented effort by a foreign government to hold lawful U.S. businesses liable for criminal acts committed entirely outside the United States. GOA previously filed an amicus brief urging the Court to dismiss the case as a dangerous affront to American sovereignty and gun rights. 

In its unanimous opinion, the Court held that Mexico’s lawsuit “attempts an end-run around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA),” and affirmed that American gun makers cannot be held liable for the criminal misuse of firearms by third parties—especially foreign cartels. 

To read the full release, go here. 

SCOTUS Declines To Hear Case On Gun Age Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a Minnesota law restricting gun rights on 18-to-20 year olds.

This effectively allows those in that age group to buy and own firearms. 

According to USA Today:

WASHINGTON −The Supreme Court on Monday declined to get involved in the ongoing debate about age restrictions for weapons, despite pleas from both Minnesota and the gun rights groups that successfully challenged Minnesota’s age limit on handgun permits.

The court declined to review an appeals court’s decision that Minnesota’s law violates the Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds.

Minnesota had restricted permits to carry handguns in public for self-defense to people age 21 or older.

That was challenged by gun rights groups which have filed similar lawsuits in Georgia, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

To read more, go here. 

What Supreme Court Justices Said About Mexico’s Lawsuit

Mexico's case against U.S. gun manufacturers is being heard before the Supreme Court. 

Instead of taking responsibility for their lack of prosecutions against drug cartels, Mexico is trying to hold gun manufacturers liable.

America's 1st Freedom reported:

On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments from opposing attorneys in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, a civil suit in which Mexico—with the help of U.S. gun-control proponents—is suing American gun companies for $10 billion because of violence committed by Mexican drug cartels on Mexican citizens.

This case is so obviously founded upon anti-gun politics that, in an amicus brief to the Court on the case, the NRA states, “Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s.”

Gun-control groups and politicians who embrace gun bans and other anti-gun efforts are supporting Mexico’s suit.

The politics of the anti-Second Amendment groups and individuals supporting this lawsuit are so clear that the justices began by attempting to determine what law or statute the American companies had allegedly broken.

This led to legal discussion on a “predicate exception” to a 2005 law—the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)—that specifically bars frivolous suits that attempt to hold a lawful manufacturer, distributor or seller of a firearm responsible if that product was later used in a criminal manner by a third party.

The attorney representing gun makers, Noel Francisco, pointed out early on that if “Mexico is right, then every law-enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and [according to this illogical deduction’] Budweiser [would be] liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash.”

As the hearing went on, some of the justices echoed this concern.

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS To Hear Mexico's Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers

The lawsuit by Mexico against U.S. gun manufacturers will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case will be heard tomorrow.

USA Today reported:

WASHINGTON − A federal law that protects the firearm industry didn’t stop the parents of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting from going after the gun maker.

But in the first test of the law before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the justices are expected to cast a more skeptical eye on Mexico’s attempt to hold American gun companies responsible for the violence caused by drug cartels armed with U.S.-made weapons.

This time, gun violence prevention groups worry the Supreme Court could side with gun makers in a way that would go far beyond this dispute between Mexico and American gun companies.

To read more, go here. 

California Sides With Mexico Against US Gun Industry

Besides turning California into a hellhole cesspool, radical Democrat liberals have been trying to diminish Second Amendment rights.

Gun control radicals are siding with Mexico against gun manufacturers and the Second Amendment.

According to the Buckeye Firearms Association:

The willingness of some in the U.S. to aid a foreign power in an assault on American industry and Americans’ Constitutional rights is sad and disturbing.

On Jan. 17, California Attorney General Rob Bonta proclaimed his support for Mexico’s position in the ongoing case Smith & Wesson Brands Inc, et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The case, now at the U.S. Supreme Court, is an attempt by the Mexican government, working with U.S.-based gun control advocates, to undo the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), make the U.S. firearms industry a scapegoat for Mexican lawlessness, and impose billions of dollars in liability on American gun manufacturers for violence perpetrated by violent criminals south of the border.

Readers should know that the PLCAA was enacted in 2005, with broad bipartisan support, to protect the firearms industry from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits. In the mid-1990s, gun control advocates, big city politicians, and trial attorneys teamed up to use the courts to bilk the gun industry for millions and force them to agree to gun control measures that gun control supporters were unable to enact in Congress. The suits sought to hold members of the industry liable for the criminal behavior of those who misused their products.

I, for one, am glad that I moved out of Commiefornia. This coming week will mark seven years since I did so.

To read more, go here.

 

Supreme Court Hearing Could Shape Future of Motorhome Sales “Ban”

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) may have to face the U.S. Supreme Court over its regulations on emissions including those that could effectively ban the sale of new motorized motorhomes.

RV Travel reported:

The Supreme Court and motorhomes? Is there a connection? Possibly, because the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the authority of a California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation. While the regulation is not specific to the one that will effectively shut down the sale of new motorhomes in California, decisions in the case could have a bearing on motorhome sales. 

To read more, go here.

SCOTUS Asked To Review California Gun Show Ban

Years ago, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors banned gun shows on county property, i.e., the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds (or Fairplex) in Pomona. This effectively killed the Great Western Gun show, which was the biggest gun show in California.

This ban did not come without a fight as citizens (including myself) attended the Board of Supervisors meetings to oppose this ban. Liberals on the Board passed it.

Since then, the state of California has also banned gun shows on state property. The fight may be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court as it was asked to hear the challenge to the state law.

The Washington Times reported:

A group that organizes gun shows at county fairgrounds in California has asked the Supreme Court to hear a challenge against laws restricting the buying and selling of guns on state property.

One of the laws prohibits anyone to “contract for, author or ally the sale of any firearm or ammunition on the property or in the buildings that comprise the Del Mar Fairgrounds.” Another regulation does the same at the Orange County Fair and Event Center.

The state later expanded its legislation to cover all state-owned land.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the challengers, reasoning the law did not meaningfully burden their constitutional rights.

The pro-gun challengers, including the Second Amendment Foundation, argue that the laws intend to ban gun shows and infringe on the speech that takes place at the events.

If the pro-gun show people prevail in their fight against the state ban, it could conceivably end Los Angeles County's similar ban. We shall see.

To read more, go here.

Court Upholds Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrants

A federal three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a law banning possession of firearms by illegal immigrants is legal.

According to an article in Reuters:

Aug 28 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court upheld a federal law that bars migrants who are in the United States illegally from possessing guns, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man convicted of unlawfully having a handgun that the ban was unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Tuesday, opens new tab that the ban was still valid even after recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have expanded gun rights by requiring firearms restrictions to be in keeping with the nation's history and tradition.

The panel said those Supreme Court rulings did not unequivocally undermine an earlier decision by the 5th Circuit holding that the plain text of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not encompass immigrants in the county illegally.

"We should not extend rights to illegal aliens any further than what the law requires," U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, a conservative appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, wrote in a concurring opinion.

I agree with this decision. In a nutshell, illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS Sides With J6rs

Things are getting worse and worse for the Democrats!

 

SCOTUS Overturns Bump Stock Ban

Above, the U.S. Supreme Court Building. Photo by Joe Ravi.

Some good news has come from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ban on bump stocks has been overturned.

The Daily Caller reported:

The Supreme Court tossed a Trump administration-era ban on bump stocks Friday.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority when it issued a rule classifying firearms equipped with bump stocks as machine guns. The case, Garland v. Cargill, challenged the ban enacted following the 2017 Las Vegas concert mass shooting, which it implemented by interpreting a federal law restricting the transfer or possession of machine guns to include bump stocks.

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS Hands NRA Major First Amendment Victory

On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory for Second Amendment's rights under the First Amendment in National Rifle Association v, Vullo.

Sounds complicated? Actually it's not. 

From the Washington Examiner:

Since the minute it was ratified, the First Amendment has been as clear as water on one thing: Government officials may not use their power to punish or abridge political viewpoints.

That’s the whole point of the “speech” part of the amendment.

Because power-hungry functionaries keep refusing to abide by that bright-line rule, the Supreme Court periodically steps in to remind us. That’s what it did on May 30 in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, when all nine justices ruled that Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, improperly pressured insurance companies and banks to deny the NRA access to their services.

The case wasn’t complicated. Vullo found a minor infraction in insurance that Lloyd’s of London and Chubb Limited had underwritten, through which the NRA provided its members access to insurance. Vullo then told Lloyd’s officials she wouldn’t penalize the company if it agreed to stop underwriting all firearm-related policies and substantially scaled back its NRA business.

Then, in a guidance letter to all entities regulated by her department, Vullo specifically discouraged them from doing business with the NRA and to consider “reputational risks” involved in doing so. In a joint press release with then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Vullo went even further, “urging all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to “discontinue their arrangement with the NRA.” Vullo’s department entered consent decrees with Lloyd’s and Chubb in which the latter agreed to not provide insurance through the NRA, even if otherwise lawful.

Vullo also made clear to Lloyd’s that she wanted to hobble all gun groups, and that (to quote the case syllabus) “she would ‘focus’ her enforcement actions ‘solely’ on the syndicates with ties to the NRA, and ‘ignore other syndicates writing similar policies.'”

Vullo’s actions were obviously coercive. If all the facts as presented in this case are found to be accurate when the case goes back to lower courts, then Vullo “used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners.”

All nine justices rightly considered this case not according to their like or dislike of the NRA, but as a matter of First Amendment protection. The unanimous decision was written by left-leaning Justice Sonia Sotomayor, even though her jurisprudence consistently approves of gun control. The unanimity indicates how strong a First Amendment case this was, and of how important that amendment is. 

To read more, go here. 

Trump Wins Supreme Court Ballot Decision

"9-0 UNANIMOUS Supreme Court rules that Donald Trump can run for President, will remain on the 2024 ballot." - posted by Donald Trump Jr. at X.

Even the liberal justices sided with Trump!

Despite SCOTUS Ruling, Gov. Abbott Kicks Biden's Nuts

In a move that can only be interpreted as a "swift kick to His Fraudulency's nuts", Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says he has constitutional authority to repel invasions of illegal aliens.

The Daily Caller reported:

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott doubled down Wednesday on the state’s “constitutional right to self-defense” days after the Supreme Court ordered the Texas National Guard to remove barbed wire to keep illegal migrants out.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision Monday, agreed to vacate an injunction that temporarily blocked Border Patrol from cutting wire Texas had placed along the border. Texas authorities appeared to ignore the ruling, with a video circulating on social media showing authorities setting up razor wire for the border in Eagle Pass, Texas.

The case made its way to the high court after the Biden Administration sued.

Abbott doubled down on the state’s response, invoking the Founding Fathers. 

“The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States. The Executive Branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States, including immigration laws on the books right now,” Abbott said in a statement. “President Biden has ignored Texas’s demand that he perform his constitutional duties.”

“James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border,” Abbott continued, citing Article IV Section 4 which says the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion” and Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 which says the states have a “sovereign interest in protecting their borders.”

“The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.”

Yup,don't mess with Texas!

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS: Texas Can’t Block Federal Agents From Border

Above, Texas and U.S. flags along freeway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a long-standing rule that the federal government has sole authority to enforce border protection laws.

Unfortunately, the federal government, under His Fraudulency Joe Biden, is not enforcing the border. They are allowing thousands of illegal aliens to flood into the country.

The Texas Tribune reported:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered Texas to allow federal border agents access to the state’s border with Mexico, where Texas officials have deployed miles of concertina wire.

The order did not explain justices’ decisions. For now, it effectively upholds longstanding court rulings that the Constitution gives the federal government sole responsibility for border security.

In October of last year, Texas sued the federal government after Border Patrol agents cut some of the wire strung along the Rio Grande, arguing the Department of Homeland Security destroyed the state’s property and interfered in Texas’ border security efforts.

The 5-4 order from the Supreme Court vacated a previous injunction from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that prevented Border Patrol agents from cutting the concertina wire.

The ruling would have been fine if the court ordered the Biden Administration to enforce border security. But they didn't.

To read the full article, go here.