[jazminerose]

It’s worse than you think. If the court can get the ‘inherently dangerous’ idiocy to stick, it opens gun owners and manufacturers up for strict liability; that is, liability without a showing of fault. The law recognizes certain activities as so inherently dangerous, there is no way to make them safe. Thus, whomever is engaged in such activities is automatically liable for any injuries or damage without a showing of any negligence or misconduct.

Open the floodgates.

The gun grabbers have wanted this language for a long, long time. Thank God we have President Trump and he’s going to appoint sound justices.

[Lurkinanloomin]

We hope.

As Roberts has illustrated, it’s always a crap shoot.

[boatbums]

From the article:

Not only are people with guns inherently dangerous, but people with guns also forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights:

Accordingly, the majority decision today necessarily leads to the conclusion that individuals who elect to carry firearms forego other constitutional rights, like the Fourth Amendment right to have law enforcement officers “knock-and-announce” before forcibly entering homes. . . . Likewise, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that individuals who choose to carry firearms necessarily face greater restriction on their concurrent exercise of other constitutional rights, like those protected by the First Amendment.

So, according to the United States judicial system, not only do guns = dangerous, but guns = forfeit constitutional rights.

Since when does exercising one constitutional right bar an American citizen from exercising others?

It shouldn’t, but that’s exactly the kind of faux logic peddled by the anti-gun “elites.” If guns are inherently dangerous, then those who carry guns must be equally so.