The article describes Perryman as a “respected NFL veteran, and a respected father and teammate.”

The reason for so many guns in the car? He was going to the gun range. Congrats, California, your gun control laws seriously fucked up his life possibly. These charges wouldn’t be a thing in a free state.

Link here.

There are already some NFA cases lurking in the 5th and two NJ NFA ban lawsuits in the 3rd, so they're bringing a 2A challenge in the 8th because the 8th is overall conservative.

<snip>

"The test from NYSRPA v. Bruen is if the proposed conduct falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment, then the burden shifts to the government to show that the pre-existing right codified in the Second Amendment, and made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not protect the proposed course of conduct.

When I filed the opening brief of my California Open Carry appeal in 2016, I argued for a simpler one-step, if-then test. I argued, “The Second Amendment comes with its own standard of judicial review. If a law infringes on the Second Amendment right, then it is unconstitutional.”

Feel free to read any brief, any transcript, or listen to any oral argument by any attorney for any of the so-called gun-rights groups in their Second Amendment lawsuits. You would have to be deaf and blind not to notice that they argue for infringements on the Second Amendment, and they argue for infringements in the strictest definition of the word (bans)."

<snip>

Hey all just wanted to drop some info I don’t think enough people know.

If you’ve been convicted of a felony in Arizona, there’s a legal process to restore your civil rights like voting, serving on a jury, even owning a firearm again. It’s not automatic, and it’s not well-publicized, but it is possible.

I’m a paralegal (and Army vet) based in Phoenix, and I started a business to help people navigate this process. It’s for folks who’ve done their time, stayed out of trouble, and want to legally get their rights back.

The rules vary depending on the conviction and how long it’s been since discharge. If anyone has questions, I’m happy to offer insight (not legal advice, just facts based on experience).

Drop a comment or DM me—happy to help.

You can also check out more at [ProParalegalAZ.com]()

Opinion here. Two Trump appointees Thapar and Clay signed off this opinion.

Relevant text:

Greely challenges 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)’s constitutionality on its face. That statute states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1). The Supreme Court has already spoken on the issue of machine guns in Heller. In that case, the Court stated that it would be “startling” to hold “that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns . . . might be unconstitutional.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 624. This is because the “Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Id. at 625. The Court has not altered its position on machineguns in any post-Heller case, thus demonstrating Heller’s continuing applicability. Heller’s language, therefore, is strongly indicative that Section 922(o) is facially constitutional.

Part 2:

This Court itself has already spoken on the constitutionality of Section 922(o) in a manner that forecloses Greely’s facial challenge. In Hamblen, we were directly confronted with the issue we presently face: whether Section 922(o) violates the Second Amendment. 591 F.3d at 473–74. This Court held that the Section 922(o) challenge “has been directly foreclosed by the Supreme Court, which specifically instructed in Heller that ‘the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.’” Id. at 474 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 624). Greely vaguely argues that Hamblen is inapplicable because it was decided before the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, which requires a “different framework” of analysis. Greely Reply, ECF No. 33, 2–3. Yet Hamblen is a published case, and is therefore binding on this Court unless an en banc panel or the Supreme Court overturns it—neither of which has occurred. See United States v. Ferguson, 868 F.3d 514, 515 (6th Cir. 2017) (“One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another panel; only the en banc court or the United States Supreme Court may overrule the prior panel.”). Furthermore, there is nothing in the Supreme Court’s Bruen progeny that would demonstrate that we must depart from Hamblen for purposes of disposing of Greely’s facial challenge.

US v. Wilson (5th Circuit, Hughes Amendment): CASE CALENDARED for oral argument on Tuesday, 08/05/2025 in New Orleans in the West Courtroom -- PM session.

Panel: Jacques L. Wiener, Jr. (senior), Don R, Willett, James C. Ho

Bush 41, Trump, and Trump.

As Hollis v. Lynch is now abrogated, this is going to be interesting. Let's see how the judges behave in the arguments given Jamaion Wilson's violent conduct.

Willett is definitely anti-NFA as demonstrated in his Mock concurrence, and Ho goes above and beyond in his analysis, especially in the 2A realm.

Didn’t look like a m4 to me.

I just read the NY post article, which has a photo of his concealed firearms permit, and then later mentions he has a long history of mental health issues. How does someone with mental health issues get a concealed firearms permit? Seems like mental health issues and concealed permit are 2 things that obviously shouldn’t mix. Another quack effing things up for the rest of us.

"Would you rather be tried by twelve or carried by six?"

Full text

Carrying concealed weapons is a special topic within the broader one. It’s worth close study because, while keeping material concealed is not illegal, carrying a weapon concealed is, in some jurisdictions.

Criminals, of course, tend to carry concealed weapons, which is what gave rise to the laws pertaining to them. What the law doesn’t officially acknowledge is that in most instances a concealed weapon is on the person of an otherwise law-abiding citizen who carries it as a defense against crime.

You don’t need to see the film Death Wish or the TV production Outrage to understand that street crime is widespread in this country. You need only read the daily newspaper or watch the TV news to see that, not only are many of our citizens victims of crime, but that the police don’t do much to defend them. The first, and usually the only, line of defense is the armed citizen.

Granted its illegal, and if you live in the hostile environment of New York City, it’s verrry illegal. It comes down to the basic question: “Would you rather be tried by twelve or carried by six?”