PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW [More]
Mark W. Smith says they’re “GREAT 2A ARGUMENTS.”
I’d feel better if they cited the word “militia” more than once, and that just to quote the amendment.
[Via Jess]
Tag: “assault weapon”
Democrat Traitor du Jour
Running Out the Clock
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has decided to hear en banc the Bianchi v. Brown MD “assault weapon” ban case and, thus, prevent a likely favor 2A ruling from being issued by the three-judge panel of that court. [Watch]
And as I’ve said, if the Republicans blow the elections and Dems manage to change SCOTUS, we’ll get to see which side is more serious.
The Devil in the Details
This technical change pushes “others” within the definition of “assault weapon” under Connecticut’s ban… While residents of other states are able to register these firearms with the ATF, or change the short barrels for longer ones to make them legal, the ATF has stated that it will not permit any such registrations from Connecticut residents due to Connecticut’s “assault weapon” ban. Nor will changing out the barrels avoid redesignation as banned “assault weapons” under Connecticut law. [More]
Damned if they did, damned if they didn’t.
And a Cartridge in Pear Tree
“…Our work continues to limit the number of bullets that can be in a cartridge… ” [More]
And don’t forget the shoulder thing that goes up!
Who better to ban things than dolts who don’t know what they’re talking about? And it’s not like those applauding him have a clue.
The Lies Continue
“Assault Weapons” Ban, Mendacious Statistics, and When All Else Fails, Obscenities! [More]
Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. tells me “With Biden trying to pass the ‘assault weapons’ [ban] during the lame duck Congress, I reposted this.”
Speaking of ‘Every Terrible Implement’…
Large-capacity magazines are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment because they are not essential to the use of firearms… Additionally, large-capacity magazines are not protected “arms” because they are not commonly used for self-defense. [More]
Since that directly follows an “Overview of Bruen’s text-and-history standard for analyzing Second Amendment claims,” I wonder what Tench would say to that…?
Legal weasel Rob Bonta proves the point that if you limit arguments to “self-defense” and ignore core purpose, you’re not using every means at your disposal.
[Via Jess]
