Ammo For Sale

« « Why are anti-gun activists so violent? | Home | Stop touching it » »

Only by disregarding SCOTUS precedent

A district judge has ruled the second amendment doesn’t apply to “assault weapons”

4 Responses to “Only by disregarding SCOTUS precedent”

  1. Paul Koning Says:

    Never mind precedent. Any judge who says things like this has utter contempt for the plain letter of the Supreme Law of the Land, and should be impeached and convicted for perjury, then tried and convicted and sent to jail for N years.

  2. Blue Falcon in Boston Says:

    The SCotUS unanimously ruled that stun guns are covered by the 2A after the MA SJC ruled they weren’t. MA is still prosecuting MA residents for stun gun possession because the state has refused to strike down the unconstitutional law.

    The deranged AG is also trying to prevent a NSSF suit against her from going to trial in the 1st federal district.

    The activist courts are doing everything possible to deny citizens civil rights hand and glove with abusive state authorities.

    The DoJ and SCotUS needs to step up and won’t =(

    Commonwealth v. Jorge Ramirez SJC-12340 Video: Check out at 26:30 where the ADA opens with stun guns are not protected because they are “dangerous AND unusual” in direct conflict with the unanimous ruling in Caetano V. Massachusetts

    Comm2A suit:

    Still arresting women for taser possession:

    AG trying to prevent the court from hearing a NSSF case. Because HOW DARE THE PEOPLE HAVE A DAY IN COURT AGAINST THEIR BETTERS!

  3. AG Says:

    The Second Amendment does apply to assault weapons because the purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm the people with the same weapons that the modern military or the military of the day uses, in order to protect the people from a possible military invasion, either domestic or foreign. What is the point of having a Second Amendment if it does not provide the people power equal to that of the government or the powers that exist at the time? How can the people properly defend themselves if they only possess handguns or weapons and arms that are significantly or substantially less powerful and effective than the weapons and arms the military of the day uses? How can the people be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, which is the essential and primary purpose of the Second Amendment? The judge who said the Second Amendment does not cover assault rifles either is ignorant of the true purpose of the Second Amendment, or is purposely violating the Constitution, in an act of treason. Does he not know what “…shall not be infringed.” means?

    Do you have legal problems? Can’t afford a lawyer? Want to learn how to win in just a few hours and get justice for yourself and your loved ones? Just click the following link and ORDER this amazing legal self-help course. I checked it out, and IT REALLY WORKS!

  4. Richard Says:

    About which the Supreme Court will do precisely nothing. Not until 2 more justices are replaced with good ones.