The leftists understand. It’s not the criminals they’re after. Leftists don’t even try to hide that fact.
HBarlow
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
You're missing the point.
Your statement above is exactly what the lying, conniving democrats want us to believe.
The Constitution either stands as written to be the law of the land or it's a "living document" (democrat lie) to be modified, edited, and ignored as democrats choose.
You can't have it both ways.
HBarlow
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Leftist leaders may understand as you stated. The dummies who drink the urine-flavored kool-aid and vote for them do not.
Have you ever tried to have an intelligent, calm, and reasonable discussion with a liberal or democrat voter?
Last edited:
The Second Amendment has been held to be one of the "fundamental rights" in the Constitution. Just like the First Amendment, which does not require you to be college educated or pass a civics exam to get to speak freely (although this right is also currently under attack), or be mentally competent to decide which religion you belong to. The Fourth Amendment does not require you to have never committed a crime to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures. We should be very careful before accepting any such limitations or qualifications on our fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment was enacted, among other reasons, to allow us to protect ourselves from enemies both foreign and domestic, including from tyranny within!
Training is certainly advisable. If you are going to use a Skilsaw, training is advisable. Actually, about the most dangerous tool around the house is a ladder--training is, again, advisable. Just because something is good and advisable is not a reason for it to have any significant impact on a fundamental right.
The Second Amendment was enacted, among other reasons, to allow us to protect ourselves from enemies both foreign and domestic, including from tyranny within!
Training is certainly advisable. If you are going to use a Skilsaw, training is advisable. Actually, about the most dangerous tool around the house is a ladder--training is, again, advisable. Just because something is good and advisable is not a reason for it to have any significant impact on a fundamental right.
100Acre
Samsquinch the Terrible Magic Bean Manipulator
Lifetime Member
Club Contributor
N
Nvrgiveup
Guest
I never really looked at it from that perspective, but I can see where that would be considered a very valid point. I guess I just keep going back to what I was told when I was a little baby airman in the USAF:
Those who can’t govern themselves force the government of all.
Darn near every law that’s ever been passed was likely introduced as a result of the actions of a small percentage of the population.
I honestly feel as though this current federal administration and their liberal Ais still chomping at the bit to disarm the citizenry in the U.S., and the throng of left-wing liberal supporters of disarmament seems to be growing like never before.
Unlike any other of my 54 years on this planet, uncertainty is most definitely the word of the day!
F
The Supreme Court is holding at least four gun related cases that I am aware of. These cases concern magazine limits, carry, "assault" weapons, and other bans. Most court watchers expect these cases to be "GVR'd," or granted, vacated, and remanded. This means the USSC takes the cases briefly, vacates the lower court ruling, and then remands, or sends the case back to the appeals circuit it came from with instructions to reconsider the ruling in light of the NYSRPA v Bruen decision.
None of the gun cases were mentioned in today's orders, but they did GVR a handful of cases relating to a decision from the week prior to NYSRPA. The next public business day on their calendar is Wednesday, and the court generally likes to have everything from the previous session disposed of by the end of June. Since they make their own rules, the USSC can also just leave the cases hanging, or decide to decline them after holding them for months with no explanation given.
They are also holding two bumpstock related cases, but those appear to revolve more around administrative and legal games and less about pure 2nd Amendment issues (currently), and aren't expected to be resolved this term.
None of the gun cases were mentioned in today's orders, but they did GVR a handful of cases relating to a decision from the week prior to NYSRPA. The next public business day on their calendar is Wednesday, and the court generally likes to have everything from the previous session disposed of by the end of June. Since they make their own rules, the USSC can also just leave the cases hanging, or decide to decline them after holding them for months with no explanation given.
They are also holding two bumpstock related cases, but those appear to revolve more around administrative and legal games and less about pure 2nd Amendment issues (currently), and aren't expected to be resolved this term.
F
No orders released today, but the four 2A cases were rescheduled for conference tomorrow (30th) so perhaps an answer on Friday.
Meanwhile, Breyer departs the USSC tomorrow and will be replaced by a judge that cannot figure out what a woman is, yet will be making decisions on Title IX cases and such.
Keep your powder dry.
Meanwhile, Breyer departs the USSC tomorrow and will be replaced by a judge that cannot figure out what a woman is, yet will be making decisions on Title IX cases and such.
Keep your powder dry.
Last edited:
HBarlow
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
If I had any religious beliefs I would say a prayer of thanks for Justices Comey, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. Having no religion, I'll just say it here: Thank you President Trump for the three excellent jurists you appointed to the Supreme Court.
I cannot even imagine the utter nonsense we would be dealing with if Trump had not appointed those Justices.
I cannot even imagine the utter nonsense we would be dealing with if Trump had not appointed those Justices.
advertisement
I agree with this completely. Arizona was one of the first constitutional carry states. We can open carry or concealed carry just about everywhere. Those of you who live in states with restrictions on this need to get more involved and teach your lawmakers that all of the BS they’re trying to add to your laws are in the wrong and do your best to give them the boot. Get active in your areas and put people in office that can change things. At the same time, spend time with your kids and neighbors and teach them safety with anything they’re trying to do.
F
Happy 4th of July weekend! Gun owners & 2A supporters are a little closer to true independence! Remember, liberal tears make the best gun lube, so hit the range this holiday to maintain proficiency as the "well regulated militia!"
The four cases I mentioned previously were all GVR'd today. They are:
* ANJRPC, concerning mag cap limit laws in NJ, it was sent back to the 3rd Appeals Circuit (CA) to redo using the recent Bruen decision as guidance.
* Bianchi, concerning "assault" weapon laws in MD, returned to the 4th CA. Black Rifles Matter!
* Duncan, also about mag limits in CA, the 9th CA is once again over-ruled. The original trial judge wrote an excellent opinion in this case, worth the read if you are so inclined, but was over-ruled just like every other pro-gun ruling in the 9th CA. 50 times over the years according to one judge.
* Young, open carry in HI, also back to 9th. This one is interesting because 9th said no right to open carry in this case, when a few years previous they said no right to concealed carry in a different case that the USSC passed on. That case, Peruta, was before Trump got his three choices confirmed.
The appeals courts have wide latitude in how they handle these cases. Some options are: they can just rewrite the opinion, or decide they need additional briefings from the parties, or maybe send the case back to the original circuit courts and tell them to start with a fresh trial to ensure all relevant info is on the record. No time limits, either. Expect the path of most resistance in the anti-gun circuits here.
As of right now, nothing has really changed for any gun owner in the US except for the parties in the Bruen case, followed by those in NY that apply for a carry license going forward. At least two or three of the six states that require a special need or good cause to get a carry license have said they will no longer ask for that, but then their AG issued opinions expanding good moral character requirements in the same letters. Most of the truly anti-gun states are already crafting laws to try and get around the Bruen decision, and any other existing laws that are no longer constitutional will generally take a lawsuit, at minimum, to be struck down.
Some help on the regulations issues may be available via the WV v EPA case released today. I haven't read that one, yet, but the USSC put some limits on the administration and EPA that could be applied to the ATF and their suddenly finding new definitions of guns (80% lowers) and machineguns (bump stocks) despite what Congress originally said. The two bump stock specific cases I mentioned in an earlier post are still held in limbo, and they are currently more focused on what rules the admin and agency use to make up their regulations and are not really about the bump stocks themselves. A ruling in our favor in either case would likely require a new trial to determine if bump stocks are legal and confirm that ATF decision making is as flawed as we all know it is.
Unfortunately, the war rages on, we are closer to the end of the beginning than we are the beginning of the end.
The four cases I mentioned previously were all GVR'd today. They are:
* ANJRPC, concerning mag cap limit laws in NJ, it was sent back to the 3rd Appeals Circuit (CA) to redo using the recent Bruen decision as guidance.
* Bianchi, concerning "assault" weapon laws in MD, returned to the 4th CA. Black Rifles Matter!
* Duncan, also about mag limits in CA, the 9th CA is once again over-ruled. The original trial judge wrote an excellent opinion in this case, worth the read if you are so inclined, but was over-ruled just like every other pro-gun ruling in the 9th CA. 50 times over the years according to one judge.
* Young, open carry in HI, also back to 9th. This one is interesting because 9th said no right to open carry in this case, when a few years previous they said no right to concealed carry in a different case that the USSC passed on. That case, Peruta, was before Trump got his three choices confirmed.
The appeals courts have wide latitude in how they handle these cases. Some options are: they can just rewrite the opinion, or decide they need additional briefings from the parties, or maybe send the case back to the original circuit courts and tell them to start with a fresh trial to ensure all relevant info is on the record. No time limits, either. Expect the path of most resistance in the anti-gun circuits here.
As of right now, nothing has really changed for any gun owner in the US except for the parties in the Bruen case, followed by those in NY that apply for a carry license going forward. At least two or three of the six states that require a special need or good cause to get a carry license have said they will no longer ask for that, but then their AG issued opinions expanding good moral character requirements in the same letters. Most of the truly anti-gun states are already crafting laws to try and get around the Bruen decision, and any other existing laws that are no longer constitutional will generally take a lawsuit, at minimum, to be struck down.
Some help on the regulations issues may be available via the WV v EPA case released today. I haven't read that one, yet, but the USSC put some limits on the administration and EPA that could be applied to the ATF and their suddenly finding new definitions of guns (80% lowers) and machineguns (bump stocks) despite what Congress originally said. The two bump stock specific cases I mentioned in an earlier post are still held in limbo, and they are currently more focused on what rules the admin and agency use to make up their regulations and are not really about the bump stocks themselves. A ruling in our favor in either case would likely require a new trial to determine if bump stocks are legal and confirm that ATF decision making is as flawed as we all know it is.
Unfortunately, the war rages on, we are closer to the end of the beginning than we are the beginning of the end.
F
