
Is There a Hidden Meaning in DOJ’s Position on Mag Bans? [Watch]
Let me get this straight: The “pro-gun” DOJ will defend magazines (because they believe bans are unconstitutional or because they think SCOTUS will rule against them?) but still demands license/registration requirements to carry and possess firearms and ammunition…?
If there’s a hidden meaning, they’re not hiding it very well. That seems kind of in-your-face…
And yeah, I’m vulnerable to being sucked in just like most gun owners.
“Full might” my… eye.
At first I thought, maybe the DOJ had no wish to “go to the wall” for a garden-variety thug, and chose his case only to attack JUST the mag ban, to establish a future precedent for political aedvantage. But as far as I have been able to tell, this guy had a clean record and the ONLY counts against him were the four (chickens*t) gun “violations” discussed.