Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate
But we are afraid of pretentious vocabulary.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate
This judge thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong in Heller and knows that he's not likely to be set straight.For most of our history, mainstream scholarship considered the Second Amendment as nothing more than a guarantee that the several states can maintain "well regulated" militias.
Note that the final comment states that the AR15 is not covered by the 2A. One of my original problems with this case is that the plaintiff threw in a 2A claim rather than limit the case specifically to the overreach and extra-legal enforcement action by the AG. I predicted that this was giving the court a "not covered by the 2A" claim to hang a decision on, and allow it to largely sidestep the "overreach" issue. Although there was some discussion of the AG's interpretation, the final summation by the court addresses the 2A issue ... one that should never have been in the plaintiff's filing in the first place.
Comm2A had very little input on this case. We were at a meeting with the NSSF (and others) shortly after the Healy ban, but we were not active participants in formulating case strategy.
But we are afraid of pretentious vocabulary.
................... Come on man You know that the truth doesn't fit the agenda the left is trying to cram down our throats!!!Somehow the idea of the firearm "being designed for military service" -- if true -- was looked at as a bad thing. So what? Tang was designed for space travel. That doesn't make every kid who drank it an astronaut.
The GPS was also designed for military service. Lets ban assault cell phones.
Is this the same judge William Young that oversaw the shoe bomber trial?
To be clear, this suit and the NSSF suit are two separate things right?
Scalia really screwed us with his majority opinion "the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited" language. I long ago lost count of the number of times the left has repeated this statement in the Heller ruling to justify anti gun legislation.
Stun guns are not protected by the second amendment because "there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military." COM v. CAETANO, 470 Mass. 774 (2015)
The AR-15 an its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to "bear arms"
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
A small step would be for a dealer to sell stripped lowers pitting the existing precedent that a lower is not a firearm against the AGs conclusion that it is.
True, but they were both arguments put forth by the AGMA SJC vs US District Court
Needs not be consistent or make sense.
Can we get this woman to help with the appeal.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEimFzVnZkw&feature=youtu.be