[CFW]

SCOTUS will have to take this case. They will have no choice.

[CFW]

Meanwhile,

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/11/03/self-defense-gun-sales-up-in-october-n76904

“Self-Defense Concerns Drive Gun Sales in October, 51 Straight Months of More Than 1-Million Transfers”

[Alas Babylon!]

...because they’re too close to machine guns...

THIS is a legal argument?

Pritzker is too close to a whale but I don't hold THAT against him.

[Yo-Yo]

SCOTUS will have to take this case. They will have no choice.

They always have a choice, and the California Miller v. Bonta case hasn't been through the 9th yet, so I think SCOTUS will wait until they overturn Judge Benitez (again) before consolidating both cases.

SCOTUS already remanded Miller v. Bonta once to the 9th with orders to reconsider in light of Bruen.

If the 9th comes up with the same conclusion 'in light of Bruen,' then SCOTUS will take it up and set a precedent for the nation.

[MileHi]

The three-judge panel concluded that AR-15s (and presumably semi-automatic rifles in general) are not protected by the Second Amendment because they’re too close to machine guns

Talk about just making up your own "facts". And they show their ignorance of all things firearms.

[ConservativeInPA]

The three-judge panel concluded that AR-15s (and presumably semi-automatic rifles in general) are not protected by the Second Amendment because they’re too close to machine guns:

Sounds like a slippery slope to me. So the National Firearms Act of 1934 essential outlawed machine guns. Now they want to outlaw semiautomatic weapons. Next will be revolvers, followed by single shot firearms. Slippery slopes work two ways and should not be the basis of constitutional arguments. But I am fine with the slippery slope going the opposite direction. Let me buy a machine gun without the tax stamp. Then I want to buy TOW missiles. If I live long enough I want to be able to buy tactical nuclear weapons to clean up blue cities.

[Skywise]

I don’t recall the constitution making an exception for “AR-15s” just that the right to bear arms shall be uninfringed.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

No real difference between a Remington Model 8 made in 1906, a Winchester model 1903 or an AR-15. Just the looks.

[MayflowerMadam]

“SCOTUS will have to take this case. They will have no choice.”

And the 2nd Amendment is so clear, I don’t see how they can do anything but rule correctly.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I like what the Georgia State Supreme Court ruled about firearms in 1846.

* Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).

“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”

I bet the people of Israel wish they had a 2nd Amendment now. I remember a couple of years back when anti-communist protestors in Hong Kong held up a sign stating “WE NEED THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

[Boomer]

Once again the rats prove they are the enemy of all real Americans.

They are still butthurt over the Roe vs Wade being overturned by using the actual law, the US Constitution they hate so much because it gets in the way of their Marxist takeover.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Where did these fags come up with that BS. From a USA Today Fart Checker?

[FlingWingFlyer]

Here’s a little nugget of information for those jackasses on the court. “Machinegun = AUTOMATIC”
AR-15 = NOT AUTOMATIC. Get your heads out of your asses.

[Gay State Conservative]

Caetano v Massachusetts

[Joe Brower]

Ping again!

[Revel]

The founder used the word “Arms” for a reason. Reading the entire amendment sheds light on why we have the 2nd amendment. And it makes no sense for a citizen to have to stand with a pee shooter while someone else is standing there with majorly superior weapons. The court are just full of political activists who have no respect for the constitution.

[wildcard_redneck]

There really is no constitutional restriction on weapons based on common use because from the Revolutionary War through the Civil War the US government often gave letters of Mark to private captains sailing private ships that were armed with canon and any other type of weapon they could afford and fit into their ships.

The Seventh Circuit Court is going to get its backside kicked by the Supreme Court.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[Brown Deer]

Just because it looks like something the military carries doesn’t make it a bad weapon… you can still have something that looks like that but is a single fire. I can go in with a single fire weapon and I can kill just as many people or if I get twenty people cornered in a school room I can hack them up with a machete until all twenty are dead. And in regard to addressing your question about how easy it is to get your hands on a bomb… go on line and you’ll learn how easy it is to make one. So we go back to this thing: that’s not the issue. The issue isn’t the instrument: we have to address why so many people want to kill people, now. If we can’t ever address that issue about what we are going to do, you can’t take the freedom away from innocent people to have the right to defend themselves, because in our country (and a lot of countries) the police can never get there in time. The police are reactive, they are not proactive, and so I have a right, no matter where I am in my country, to protect myself and my family. People will say, ‘Well, you’re only going to get attacked in your home.’ That’s not true. I may be on the road with my family and someone tries to do something to me there. In America this issue of gun control revolves around something much bigger, which is political. A government – and a tyrant government – knows that if you can take guns away from people then you can bring military forces in at anytime and that is the one thing our forefathers knew a long time ago. As long as the average person has the right to defend themselves, governmental organised armies have to think twice before they come in to take over a country. ~~ Bazzel Baz, May 13, 2018

[I got the rope]

How many times does SCOTUS have to take these cases and over rule them. These judges need to be impeached.

[trebb]

Yep - Gonna have to go to SCOTUS - else, ALL semi autos will be open to banning - whether a .22 lr or any semi-auto handgun....because they’re “too close to being machine guns....”