4excal
.338 Win Mag
Bring on the awareness..no matter what the awareness brings...
Supreme Court's next big gun control case? Post-Newtown laws face new scrutiny
Supreme Court's next big gun control case? Post-Newtown laws face new scrutiny
Supreme Court's next big gun control case? Post-Newtown laws face new scrutiny
- Thread starter 4excal
- Start date
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
I call BS!!! NRA doesn't do anything for anybody! Right?
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
this needs to be put on hold for another year maybe two. Til one of the other liberal dipshits on the SCOTUS is removed
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
They are backing it. Not fighting it. Just like they did with our case. They backed it with 50 grand.
However, four states—California, Connecticut, Maryland and New York—passed or strengthened bans on semiautomatic weapons in 2013.
And in Massachusetts our Lesbian AG BANNED AR-15's with NO LEGISLATION AT ALL !!
AG Announces Enforcement of Ban on Assault Weapons
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
“It is unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment,” Frosh said in a February statement
Hyperbolic asshole. So if .GOV is going to claim they are "weapons of war", require the state to cite exactly which branch of the US military is currently using semi-automatic AR-15's in active service, or in fact when they were EVER used by the active military.
Hyperbolic asshole. So if .GOV is going to claim they are "weapons of war", require the state to cite exactly which branch of the US military is currently using semi-automatic AR-15's in active service, or in fact when they were EVER used by the active military.
4excal
.338 Win Mag
Sure don't remember writing that title LOL
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If they don't belong in civilian hands, you better make the cops (and your bodyguards) get rid of them first. Try it with them for a while, you don't even need to pass a law for that.
If you're not going to take them from the cops, then you implicitly admit they are not only for war.
Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the 2A (as ruled in Miller) only protects "weapons of war", so you can't claim it doesn't protect them, or it wouldn't protect anything.