A variation on that graphic you saw - 
Posted on 09/27/2021 2:13:25 PM PDT by PROCON
On September 21, the Biden Administration filed an amicus brief in the pending U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, supporting New York’s draconian and unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear firearms in public for self-defense.
This NRA-supported challenge to New York’s “may-issue” licensing scheme for public handgun carry is the first Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law to reach the high court since 2010.
New York’s law presumptively denies the right to bear arms for self-defense unless a license applicant can demonstrate a special need for self-protection that distinguishes the person from the general population.
In practice, this means the rich and well-connected can get unrestricted carry licenses but ordinary people cannot, even if they actually face a greater risk of being violently victimized while going about their daily lives in public. The law effectively nullifies for most New Yorkers what the Supreme Court has already characterized as “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
New York’s “may-issue” scheme in fact gives authorities so much discretion that it has fostered a culture of corruption, particularly within the Licensing Division of the New York City Police Department (NYPD). There have been repeated scandals involving the NYPD Licensing Division’s application process, with “facilitators” offering gifts and bribes to licensing personnel to approve or expedite their clients’ applications. In some cases, this has resulted in the issuance of carry licenses to applicants with otherwise disqualifying criminal histories and in criminal convictions for NYPD officers. In other locales, licenses are issued by elected sheriffs, with preference given to political donors and supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
Eve of destruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I
I would not count on this SC to help much.
Thank God we’re not having to fight the Axis powers in the present time. We’d be speaking Jap-accented German.
Joe is following orders from Obozo’s staff.....
Do they need the military? After all, they already sent their minions to deprive Americans of their guns and their rights. They sent them decades ago and they are doing a slow, gradual, but effective job of it. They call themselves journalists and teachers. And we let them into our homes, we even let them mind the children.
A new Constitutional Amendment nullifying anything in the Bill of Rights is a no go. You'll need a Constitutional Convention to over turn ANY of the Bill of Rights. Thank your genius, God-fearing Founding Fathers.
A famous man once said, “You won’t need the 2nd amendment until they try to take it away from you”
Well folks here’s your sign!
Absolutely! And worse.
as my hubby just said.........a court thinks it can take away a constitutional amendment now
It doesn't matter who takes the first shot, it's who is going to back him up.
You think it's going to be the guy with a mortgage on his house, payments on his new truck and ATV and new boat? The same guy who has two kids in college, another playing soccer and the weekend commitments to the kid for his school's tournaments?
And so it begins, so who is going to have his back?
I just cannot understand why PDJT appointed Gen. Milley to the position of Chief of JCS
4.19.1775 is what they want and they realize the quickest way to weaken the USA is a civil war. These treasonous evil doers need to all be in jail…
A-so mein herr
Trump went into DC thinking he could negotiate in good faith. He took BAD advice from inside the beltway RINOs. No one ever explained to him that the left wants us all dead. He didn't figure that out until 2019.
And the yellow coward Roberts refused the TX and enjoining states in the election.
Now its this.
So let me get this straight, Biden has no problem allowing millions of dollars of gear to get into the hands on the Taliban, but we have to give up ours?
Never happen and I’m sure SCOTUS is probably laughing their asses off about the insanity of it. Even the liberal ones.
BKMK
In support of their argument, they deceptively quote Kavanaugh's dissent as a D.C. Circuit judge in Heller II that "After all, history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right and are consistent with that right, as the Court said in Heller. By contrast, if courts applied strict scrutiny, then presumably very few gun regulations would be upheld."
However, the entire point of Kavanaugh's dissent was to reject the majority's application of intermediate scrutiny as inconsistent with Heller and McDonald. Kavanaugh didn't think either strict or intermediate scrutiny was the correct approach, but "[e]ven if it were appropriate to apply some kind of balancing test or level of scrutiny to D.C.'s ban on semi-automatic rifles, the proper test would be strict scrutiny[.]"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.