Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wrong.Wrong.That comma in the 2nd Amendment must short circuit the lefts brain or something because you people always leave out everything after it.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
The "left" follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.
No...they don't. The leftists on the 9th, 4th, 2nd circuit courts ignore the rulings in Heller, Miller, Caetano and just make up their own decisions when it comes to rifle and magazine bans as well as carry permits.....as the 9th ruling on magazines and concealed carry show.....
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions or carry permits.
A law or measure is presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see US v. Morrison (2000)).
The "left” in fact follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.
More ignorance from the right.Wrong..........."shall not be infringed" Many states are in violation right now.
No state's firearm regulatory measures violates the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never invalidated such measures.
WHAT A LOAD OF BULL
Cite a Supreme Court case invalidating a state’s firearm regulatory measure.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s AWB.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s magazine capacity restriction.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s UBC requirement.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s may-issue law concerning concealed carry permits.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s waiting period or gun purchase limits.
All the above measures are perfectly Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
Having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia is clearly a determinant concerning militia.There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
Given that the "assault weapon" as we now define it did not exist in 1939, and given that the right to bear arms had not been extended by the Court beyond a militia to apply to the citizenry until 2008, and given that Justice Scalia had noted at that time that "some limitations that can be imposed," and "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time” makes it clear that revision predicated upon changing technology and societal understanding is eminently applicable.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Totally not true.
Number one. The right to keep arms is, in fact, a limit on the US federal govt (and now state govts). This means that the US federal govt (and now state govts) cannot prevent you from owning arms.
They can prevent you from having nukes, SAMS, tanks and other weaponry, as long as individuals can own "arms" then they can limit which arms they can have.
"assault rifles" can be banned, and individuals can still "keep arms".
Secondly, the right is not connected to the militia. If it were it'd be pointless.
The whole reason for the 2A is so that when the militia is called up into federal service that they can't take the militia's weaponry away, because it's not the militia's weaponry, it's individual's weaponry.
Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.
The "unorganized militia", by its very nature, doesn't need to be "well regulated" any more. It's been annulled as an issue.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Heller and Caetano, the Supreme Court rulings say you are wrong.
Lying pos.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Heller and Caetano, the Supreme Court rulings say you are wrong.Assault weapons legislation in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.Lying pos.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Where do the majority of those gun deaths happen ?
You are wrong....
makes it clear that revision predicated upon changing technology and societal understanding is eminently applicable.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
YOU ARE AN IDIOTAssault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Heller and Caetano, the Supreme Court rulings say you are wrong.Assault weapons legislation in the United States - Wikipedia
I cited actual supreme Court rulings.......Heller makes any rifle ban unConstitutional...that the lower courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano and Miller doesn't make their actions Constitutional, just illegal.
The state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.
shrugs bugget in the way and find outand all that will happen lot of dead politicians and justices
So what are you saying exactly Biggie - You gonna act out dude?
SKEERY!!
no leftists who support tyranny are stupidYOU ARE AN IDIOTAssault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Heller and Caetano, the Supreme Court rulings say you are wrong.Assault weapons legislation in the United States - Wikipedia
I cited actual supreme Court rulings.......Heller makes any rifle ban unConstitutional...that the lower courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano and Miller doesn't make their actions Constitutional, just illegal.
The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democratsThe state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.
The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities.
you're batting a 1000 on failureWrong.Wrong.That comma in the 2nd Amendment must short circuit the lefts brain or something because you people always leave out everything after it.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
The "left" follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.
No...they don't. The leftists on the 9th, 4th, 2nd circuit courts ignore the rulings in Heller, Miller, Caetano and just make up their own decisions when it comes to rifle and magazine bans as well as carry permits.....as the 9th ruling on magazines and concealed carry show.....
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions or carry permits.
A law or measure is presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see US v. Morrison (2000)).
The "left” in fact follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.
AWB are infringementsMore ignorance from the right.Wrong..........."shall not be infringed" Many states are in violation right now.
No state's firearm regulatory measures violates the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never invalidated such measures.
WHAT A LOAD OF BULL
Cite a Supreme Court case invalidating a state’s firearm regulatory measure.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s AWB.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s magazine capacity restriction.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s UBC requirement.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s may-issue law concerning concealed carry permits.
The Court has never ruled on a state’s waiting period or gun purchase limits.
All the above measures are perfectly Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
