Darn Tough Vermont

Tactical Tailor: Ingels on Constitutionality

This is a guest post from Dave Reeder that is based on a lengthy interview with Tactical Tailor’s Casey Ingels. Casey is an attorney (he’s also a former Army Ranger) and he has an interesting take on the recent rash of restrictive gun legislation being introduced across the country. Casey and I have discussed the issue as well and I agree with his point of view. I am very concerned that these laws not only infringe on our Second Amendment rights but several of these bills also introduce outrageous Fourth Amendment concerns. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, weaken one of amendments in the Bill of Rights and you undermine them all. Thanks to Dave for putting this together and to Casey for his time and expertise.

Tactical Tailor – Ingels on Constitutionality by solsys

Tags: ,

3 Responses to “Tactical Tailor: Ingels on Constitutionality”

  1. 404953C says:

    So who do we call in places like NY and NJ to challenge these laws? I’ve spoken to a few firms and they would not take the case unless an individual was being prosecuted under the law. IE I need to be arrested for possession of a carbine aka an “assault weapon” before they could do anything?

    I believe what is happening now across America is a direct result of 2A lobby groups like the NRA abandoning places like NY, NJ, MA, etc. Despite vast sums of capital specifically allocated to defend ghe 2A, these ban states remain unchallenged in courts for over a decade and now others states are following their examples.

    The NRA and GOA, both groups that I am a member of, need to address this head on and throw their weight at NY and NJ. If they can stop the AWB and prove these magazine bans are illegal here, where they are law, I believe it will stop the dominos.

    • Casey says:

      They are wrong. It is easier for them to make the argument if there is a serious deprivation of liberty, but certainly the statute itself can be challenged as long as the Plaintiff has some level of standing. Agreed on your point that the large pro 2 A lobbies are asleep at the wheel. It will take money for them to challenge these laws, but isn’t that why you are a member? We just need to follow the Contsitution on all Constitutional issues….seems simple and academic. We want to protect ALL Constitutional rights…..

  2. straps says:


    The pseudoprogressives also have a bunch of retired General and Flag Officers chiming in with their take on evil assault weapons. I remind the gun grabbers that while they may be pleased with the 2A stance of these Officers, they might not be so warm & fuzzy about their take on the other 9.

    Still haven’t had the chance to take GEN McChrystal up on the inherent conflict between his take on personal firearms ownership and the role that Matt Larsen and the rest of his IPSC/3-gun guys (using their own hardware to build a level of proficiency above and beyond their peers) played in re-vamping his CQB program during his time in Regiment.