Notes from the Resistance
There are historical and psychological reasons why the legal age for purchasing assault weapons does not make sense [More]
And if you want to know about gun laws, who better to consult than a “Professor and Director, Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies [and] Editorial Director, Feminist Studies”?
[Via Dan Gifford]
“We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances. Its reference to arms does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th Century… just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, 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. Thus even though the Second Amendment’s definition of arms is fixed according to the historical understanding that that general definition covers modern…modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. [Watch]
Exactly right. What I’m having trouble connecting the dots on is this:
What is that burden that the government has to bear? The government has to come forth to prove that the arms that they want to ban are not in common use.
Ignoring the first 13 words and focusing exclusively on self-defense leaves the door open to saying post-’86 machine guns are not in common use. It also means that new technological developments that the government reserves for itself will never be.
That is what I’d like to see Mr. Smith elaborate on. I believe he’s one of the few who could.
As an aside, I think the first Republican presidential candidate who promised to nominate him if any Supreme Court openings happen would gain a huge advantage with gun owners.
[Via Stephen I]
The state has been relying on “expert witnesses” who are attempting to prove that early firearms do not have the capacity of modern firearms. Why you need “expert” witnesses to prove this is hard to understand. But the notion that our constitution only protects things in existence 200 years ago is odd when the argument is taking place in a courtroom filled with computers and flat screen TV’s, fed by the internet, and protected by metal detectors. [More]
Add a Catch-22 on “ripeness” and you get a feel for what they’re up against.
Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to hold fast on denyng a quorum, so “Attaboys” to them.
Yesterday, the state presented an “expert” witness who hilariously claimed that it takes 5 seconds or more to change a magazine. This false and absurd statement was made in an effort to convince the court that low capacity magazines will protect people in mass shootings by giving them time to run away. [More]
A moron presenting himself as an expert testifying that an abomination bent on slaughter would nonetheless obey magazine restrictions did not result in his being laughed out of the courtroom? Who is this guy?
A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a request to block a new Washington state law banning the sale of certain semi-automatic rifles…[More]
[Via Jess]
Related UPDATE
The dolt actually said they “allow a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, unlike previous guns.”
[Via WiscoDave]
“Eight years ago, you were entertained,” he said. “I forgive you.” [More]
28 years ago you said this. And you lied about saying this two years earlier:
“‘The issue which has energized me to get into this race is the recent attempt by certain Republican legislators to repeal New Jersey’s ban on
assault weapons,’ Christie said in a statement released (on April 14, 1993). ”In today’s society, no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon.'”
[Watch]
Except I also need to point out who the robed idiot that said that was nominated by.
[Via Jess]
Maryland dad beaten to death after protecting his kid in middle school fight [More]
He was “confronted by three teens and two adults” …?
Good thing “assault weapons” are considered unsuitable for self-defense in Maryland! Otherwise, the whole thing might have ended with nobody getting hurt, or at least the right ones…
[Via bondmen]
New Mexico’s Governor Claims An AR-15 Is An Automatic Weapon That No One Should Own [Watch]
She knows she’s lying. MSNBC knows she’s lying. It’s an old lie, one that “our side” has exposed ad nauseam, and one the grabtards use repeatedly and shamelessly in spite of that. The other lie is that We the People don’t have the right to own “every terrible implement of the soldier.”
The only people who don’t know she’s lying are those stupid enough to vote for her and to go to MSNBC to be informed, and in particular, Morning Joe.
[Via Jess]
Since assault weapons bans aren’t coming back and AR-15-style rifles are here to stay, the most important thing we can do is modernize the background check system, around which there’s a modicum of bipartisan consensus. [More]
What, you mean the system that the National Institute of Justice says requires registration to be effective, and that criminals won’t subject themselves to anyway…?
Still, nice of him to admit they don’t have the juice to get rid of them. In The New York Times, no less…
[Via Jess]
Biden pens oped calling for tighter gun laws, ban on AR-15-style weapons [More]
Who thinks he actually wrote it, as opposed to his handlers putting his name on it?
He didn’t even do his own work back before he was senile.
[Via bondmen]
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request to block state and local laws barring the sale of assault-style weapons in Illinois while a group of challenges to those laws continues in the lower courts. There were no dissents publicly recorded from the unsigned order, nor did the justices provide any explanation for their decision. [More]
I’m going to resist reading more into this for now.
[Via Jess]
NY Anti-Gun Attorney General Files Lawsuit Against Gun Accessory Manufacturer [More]
Of course, it’s wrong.
I’m just trying to work up sympathy for companies and citizens that try to comply with tyranny in the first damn place. I’m also wondering why, aside from a few notable individuals like Barrett and Hornady, the industry and its trade association are committed to arming the disarmers.
In particular, the court explained, “the text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected.” Id. at 18. “Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition.” [More]
So it was the Founders’ contention that only “safe” arms were “necessary to the security of a free State”?
[Via Jess]
America has 20 million AR-15 style rifles in circulation, and more guns than people in the country [More]
No, of course, they don’t have the resources to go after them via the legal system.
Which doesn’t mean they don’t have ruthless plans to eliminate threats to totalitarianism another way…
[Via bondmen]
Texas gunman who shot dead five people had elaborate DEATH CULT shrine in his bedroom as well as cartel tattoos – as his ties to criminal underworld are exposed [More]
So naturally, the Democrats are focused on the gun.
[Via bondmen]
Court upholds California’s assault weapons bans [Watch]
Of course, it did.
Not that the reptiles causing the problems will be slowed down one beat.
[Via Jess]
SAF SEEKS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN WASHINGTON GUN BAN LAWSUIT [More]
Just one more reason for the attack…
