Posted on 05/11/2023 9:12:26 AM PDT by rellimpank
As mass shootings become an almost ever-present part of the news cycle, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on a case any day now which “could legalize assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in all 50 states.”
In the case in question, National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, a gun shop owner and a gun rights group have claimed that two Illinois statutes “violate the Second Amendment,” and now it’s on the shadow docket for the Supreme Court.
But what exactly is the shadow docket? In a nutshell, the high court takes cases on either the merit or shadow docket, and essentially every case you can name, i.e., Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, was on the merit docket. While cases on the merit docket require the Court to consider briefs and hold oral arguments before the justices issue a lengthy opinion, “[c]ases on the on the shadow docket…typically do not receive extensive briefing or a hearing
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Try explaining that to law enforcement when they follow the “laws” that their system puts in place. Other stuff won’t matter.
I have yet to hear an anti-2A zealot definitively define “assault weapon”.
It is nearly impossible for the average gun owner to obtain a true assault weapon, defined as select fire to full auto.
They understand just fine... They don’t like the 2A and want it to go away so that their power will then be uncontested.
Anything else they say is a lie meant to appeal to the unknowing and uncaring masses.
“As mass shootings become an almost ever-present part of the news cycle...”
And the people saying that are the ones who determine what becomes part of the news cycle, and what doesn’t!
It's not that they don't understand. They don't care.
Obtain “in accordance with their arbitrary and unConstitutional edicts”... Agreed. The Pre-86 pool gets a bit smaller as time goes on.
Dead stupid simple to obtain one in accordance with our 2A protected Rights.
It does come with the risk of being gunned down by the very government agents it was put in place to protect us from though...
Decide for yourself when that risk is worth it... For me, it is without question “worth it”.
From the commies’ press organs to Heaven’s ears!
But it shouldn’t take a court decision. They’re already a constitutionally protected liberty of American citizenship. Shall not infringe…
Look to recently returned Senator Fienstein (D-Kalifornia)
who identified any firearm, color black, and appeared "scarey",
as an assault firearm.
I can only wonder how she would identify the pink rifles and shotguns. Think about it !
That identifies her level of understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
She needs a civics lesson (!), or at least, a scholarship to Hillsdale College.
“Why is it so difficult for liberals to understand that the right to bear arms is not at the discretion of congress or the supreme court?”
Oh, they understand it, they just don’t approve. Full implementation of the Leftist agenda requires the population to be unarmed. Armed citizens won’t put up with the BS they have planned for us. You know, in the name of equity, diversity, and inclusion.
Oh, to hear the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth when this happens. Tears of Joy
“Legalize” “assault rifles”
They know about “shall not be infringed,” they simply don’t care.
While listening to a nationally broadcast radio talk show the other day, I was astonished to hear FBI statistics on gun violence.
The most recent numbers quoted (these are rough numbers as I remember them)=
50,000 gun deaths in the U.S.
25,000 due to accidents, gang violence and other criminal activity.
25,000 due to suicide.
100 due to “mass shootings.”
Yet the “mass shootings” are all the media is concerned with.
They believe it is a living document that can be changed on a whim. That is their whim, not everyone's whim.
A supreme court ruling doesn’t make something legal.. it determines if the laws as written are illegal.
If the court determines the laws restricting these guns are illegal, that doesn’t suddenly make them legal, they have been legal all along and the GOVERNMENT has overstepped its authority in trying to regulate them.
So called ‘assault rifles’ don’t kill people. People kill people, sometimes in self defense from the feral cats that are roaming the streets.
And you’ll be waiting a very long time to hear it, considering how doggedly they refuse to even provide a definition for “woman.”
I was surprised they admitted this in the article:
“Although AR-15s are not assault weapons, they are included in the types of guns banned by state laws.”
Lord, let it be so.
Liberals believe that the source of your rights is the government. Therefore, the government may restrict those rights as it sees fit. Also, the Constitution is a living document, subject to change by the courts or by public opinion. This interpretation fits in well with their belief that there is really no right or wrong, just shades of opinion. But if you disagree with them then you are absolutely in the wrong, no ifs, ands or buts about it!
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.