First circuit courts of appeals rule no right to bear arms outside the home

I mean, you can't be menacing with a rifle while walking down the street, but getting to where you're going to hunt rabbits is perfectly legal.
 
Shall not be infringed

a bunch of commas and militia talk. Its pretty poorly written or needs translated into real English.

What to do is look at how it was enforced in 1800 and that seems to be that folks could own guns and carry them around. I don't see the debate there.

Maybe guns can be registered, maybe guns can be restricted from certain places but it seems clear the application of the 2nd during the lifetimes of its writers even if it was poorly written.

Only because people like you are anti gun nutters

Smart politics would be to be friends with the guy who says the writers of the 2nd obviously intended folks to own firearms.

But yeah, if you wanna argue, I think your guns are effectively registered if you have a Google or Facebook app on your smartphone and the NRA is a bunch of idiots or scared sissy team worshipers for not realizing it and defending privacy rights.

Once again though, the implementation of the 2nd is clear, the NRA are idiot sissies or team worshipers and I'm just bringing the latter up since you poked me.

That's nice....but...shall not be infringed. Suck on it

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

ok, go join the National Guard and get a gun then! They might just send you to defend the border from folks we should make into future Americans lol.

Really your best argument is looking at how it was implemented not quoting the darned thing.
I Guess you can’t help it if you’re too fucking stupid to read it in the context of the era
 
With the nomination of judges across the nation... The strengthening of the Second Amendment continues
 
I mean, you can't be menacing with a rifle while walking down the street, but getting to where you're going to hunt rabbits is perfectly legal.

Are you serious? The demoquacks get the shivers at the sight of a pop tart gun

I was popping some peacocks with 2-pumps on a Crosman 760 and somebody called the law and said I was out there with a pump shotgun. That's damn dangerous. Luckily I was blessed and the cops had sense. I showed them the "pump gun" 1 laughed.

No sense in hurting the peacocks anymore, they're not going away unless I kill them. There's food, and they know it. Besides, if times get bad, that's some big chickens.
 
obama-fake-tears.jpg
 
This is why people need to push for amending their state constitutions.

The 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government.
 
This is why people need to push for amending their state constitutions.

The 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government.

The Supremacy Clause makes the federal law paramount therefore the Second is paramount over state laws
 
Last edited:
This is all related to the Massachusetts firearms licensing law that we’ve been fighting for 20 years. Hopefully SCOTUS takes this up so we can finally get a reasonable ruling on this atrocious piece of legislation.
 
This is all related to the Massachusetts firearms licensing law that we’ve been fighting for 20 years. Hopefully SCOTUS takes this up so we can finally get a reasonable ruling on this atrocious piece of legislation.

Massoftwoshits can expect a beat down if it reaches SCOTUS.

Thanks Trump!!!!!
 
U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home. From uscourts.gov:

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally.
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home
View attachment 228714

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2202P-01A.pdf


Well the morons will turn them in when they offer you money for them, pushed into hard times hard up for money why turn in your guns we will give you money for them , that way we can sell them back out into the streets.

That way it takes away all your methods that are free will and a right to protect your home, family etc...

They are pushing for the COPS to lose their guns too.

It is a sad day when ppl are so dumbed down they haven't a clue the 2nd amendment is for . MORE THAN TO OWN A GUN ILLITERATE IDIOTS.
Our Second Amendment is expressly clear as to who is Necessary to the security of a free State.

This case is not about the militia in any way. It must be a natural rights issue.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why let our legislators, off the hook. If there are security problems in our free States, natural rights cannot be Infringed via public policy.
 
Bad decision

I believe the more people can open carry -- the safer we all will be

And I think the age limit of those who can open carry should also be lowered
 
Shall not be infringed

a bunch of commas and militia talk. Its pretty poorly written or needs translated into real English.

What to do is look at how it was enforced in 1800 and that seems to be that folks could own guns and carry them around. I don't see the debate there.

Maybe guns can be registered, maybe guns can be restricted from certain places but it seems clear the application of the 2nd during the lifetimes of its writers even if it was poorly written.
You got to read it in the context of the era… Apparently you’re too stupid to realize that

In the bigger sense I said the 2nd is poorly written and can be read a few ways but we need to look at how it was applied then as and tell hiw it was meant to be read.
 
Bad decision

I believe the more people can open carry -- the safer we all will be

And I think the age limit of those who can open carry should also be lowered
Organize more militia.
Call it whatever you like, as long as it translates to more guns and younger people carrying them -- as long as they are properly trained and love their country
 
Prove me wrong, dumb ass.The Constitution is paramount, crap my 15 year twins know that and you don't? LMAOYou're about to get shellacked....better run
`
Excitable one aren't you. You gave an opinion, a stupid one but still an opinion. I'm not going to argue your opinion with you. I deal in facts, not excitable pronouncements made by a far right partisan. When you make a claim using FACTS, then contact me...in the mean time slow down there buckaroo.
`
 

Forum List

Back
Top