[ClearCase_guy]

If we had a decent Supreme Court, they would issue a sweeping ruling declaring that no infringements would be allowed.

[marktwain]

If we had a decent Supreme Court, they would issue a sweeping ruling declaring that no infringements would be allowed.

---

The court ruled, in Bruen, that the only infringements allowed are those that were considered acceptable, in law, when the Bill of Rights was ratified. There were a few. “Dangerous and unusual” weapons carried to “terrify the public” were banned in some places, enough to qualify.

Regulating the storage of large amounts of gunpowder.

Prohibiting the carry of weapons into legislative sessions, Courts, and polling places when they were being used, and when the government was providing security.

That is how it is looking to shape up at present.

To ban “infringements” you have to define what “infringements” are. That is what is going on in the courts now.

[Bonemaker]

That’s my thought too. The lazy bastards have done nothing about the various state bans. Useless.