Court rules against ownership of black rifles.

[Rod Snell]

In case you have all forgotten, in 2012 the rules of the Senate were changed to allow a simple majority for Federal appointments for everything except the Supreme Court. This change was pushed through by the same party that is now crying that the rule they made is being used to approve Pres Trump's appointments.

Pres Obama and Sen Harry Reid used THEIR rule to stuff the mid-level Federal judgeships with dozens of radical activist judges that are now producing such asinine rulings as the one we are discussing. And if this were appealed to the Supreme court now, it would be 4 to 4, which always means the Lower Court Decision STANDS.

For all those that have lectured about what YOU think the 2A means when I said the Constitution means WHATEVER THE FEDERAL COURTS DECIDE, well. I TOLD YOU SO!
That's why appointing judges is such a big deal. Now we have both the 4th and 9th Circuit courts so stuffed with liberal activists that NO favorable 2A opinion is going to come out of either.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

Looks like a few judges need to be viewed under a microscope and see if any impeachable offenses have occurred. Hey if the irs can harass certain types of people...

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Looks like a few judges need to be viewed under a microscope and see if any impeachable offenses have occurred. Hey if the irs can harass certain types of people...

Illegally blocking the president from doing his constitutional rights is enough for them to be impeached. Everyone with half a brain knows the 9th circuit ruling was done by radical leftists that want to hurt Trump any way possible. This isn't gonna be the only time this happens. Unfortunately.

 

[tRidiot]

There can be no limitations on what arms are allowed in war - even if that war is one between the people of a country and those in the government of that country.

Tell that to the signatories of the Hague convention - you know, the one that says hollowpoint bullets are "too deadly" to be used in war?

It's staggering to think that these traitors actually receive a paycheck every two weeks for voiding thousands of citizen's rights without cause.

I could be wrong here... but I would assume Federal judges get paid monthly.

j/k man

<edit> Although I will admit, the US did object to that portion of the Hague convention, but as NATO members, we do not use hollow points in most(?) military weapons. However... that may be on the way out.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Tell that to the signatories of the Hague convention - you know, the one that says hollowpoint bullets are "too deadly" to be used in war?
....

Yeah, but remember it was governments that agreed to that "edict." And, what a joke that is. It's OK so send a 155MM round through someone's belly, but not a hollow point.

Woody

 

[Commander Keen]

This is absurd. The Supreme Court has already ruled (early-ish in the 20th century, I think) that guns that have a military purpose are specifically protected by the 2A.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

This is absurd. The Supreme Court has already ruled (early-ish in the 20th century, I think) that guns that have a military purpose are specifically protected by the 2A.

Might be this one.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015)."


"The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand. The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense. The Supreme Judicial Court suggested that Caetano could have simply gotten a firearm to defend herself. 470 Mass., at 783, 26 N. E. 3d, at 695. But the right to bear other weapons is “no answer” to a ban on the possession of protected arms. Heller, 554 U. S., at 629. Moreover, a weapon is an effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should have been ready to shoot the father of her two young children if she wanted to protect herself."

"If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe. "

 

[Riley]

Here's an interesting read that lays out the grabbers "long game" re the 4th circuit decision.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ets_the_stage_for_a_new_national_gun_ban.html

Cliff notes version: The 4th had the case in May and were waiting for the election to announce the decision. This announcement after the election combined with a dem appointment to the court, which was in their minds practically assured, would lay the ground work for the gutting of heller and 2A rights. We would have been left stamping our feet while they shredded the constitution again.

I think it interesting that we have gov't, in this case judiciary action, which would have been used to deprive the nation of fundamental rights.

Interesting times.

 

[otis147]

stamping our feet? what are the guns for, again?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Here's an interesting read that lays out the grabbers "long game" re the 4th circuit decision.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ets_the_stage_for_a_new_national_gun_ban.html

Cliff notes version: The 4th had the case in May and were waiting for the election to announce the decision. This announcement after the election combined with a dem appointment to the court, which was in their minds practically assured, would lay the ground work for the gutting of heller and 2A rights. We would have been left stamping our feet while they shredded the constitution again.

I think it interesting that once again we have gov't, in this case judiciary action, which would have been used to deprive the nation of fundamental rights. We saw a similar application of gov't policy driving actions to support future policy decisions in Fast and Furious as well. The IRS actions denying status, followed closely by the debacle of begahzi and the executives significant efforts to cover that one up probably got the previous admin the second term.

Interesting times.

While I'd prefer that the Court went along with the Constitution, they would still have to come and take our guns from us if they rule contrary to the Constitution. If they are willing to kill us to disarm us, I hope they are prepared to meet the maker, for they must be willing to die for that end as well.

Woody