Skip to comments.
Democrat AGs Declare 'Assault Weapons' Aren't Protected by the Second Amendment
bearingarms.com ^
| December 12, 2023
| By Cam Edwards
Posted on 12/13/2023 9:50:20 AM PST by Red Badger
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
To: marktwain; PROCON
2
posted on
12/13/2023 9:50:55 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(Homeless veterans camp in the streets while l aliens are put up in hotels.....................)
To: Red Badger
They know that’s not true.
3
posted on
12/13/2023 9:52:13 AM PST
by
TBP
(Decent people cannot fathom the amoral cruelty of the Biden regime.)
To: Red Badger
When are they going to go after the news media for free speech? You know we get the information way to fast. It needs to be distributed be people on horses! Ban the internet! lol
4
posted on
12/13/2023 9:54:33 AM PST
by
US_MilitaryRules
(#PureBloodlaw enforcement. )
To: Red Badger
They can “declare” whatever they want. They are wrong and in violation of our Constitutionally protected Rights under the 2nd, 10th, and 14th Amendments.
5
posted on
12/13/2023 9:55:16 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(A Psalm in napalm...)
To: TBP
Of course... but their propaganda machine can now parrot this lie incessantly to their idiot followers and uncaring masses.
6
posted on
12/13/2023 9:56:05 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(A Psalm in napalm...)
To: Red Badger
“Are AR-15s most useful in military service? Considering that no branch of the military equips service members with semi-automatic AR-15s, I’m gonna go out on a sturdy limb and say “no.” The semi-automatic rifles banned by California have great utility for hunting, self-protection, and sport, but they’re not the weapon of choice for our armed services.”
So by his argument M16s ARE protected by the 2nd Amendment.
7
posted on
12/13/2023 9:58:06 AM PST
by
Brooklyn Attitude
(I went to bed on November 3rd 2020 and woke up in 1984.)
To: Red Badger
It wasn’t until thirty years later that the federal government imposed a ban on the manufacture and sale of arms it considered “assault weapons,” and that prohibition expired in 2004.Nothing in that ban addressed the semi-automatic capability of the weapons. Features such as bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and muzzle brakes were banned.
8
posted on
12/13/2023 9:58:23 AM PST
by
gundog
(It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. )
To: Red Badger
Once upon a time the British banned assault weapons.
We shot them.
9
posted on
12/13/2023 9:59:18 AM PST
by
MeganC
(There is nothing feminine about feminism. )
To: Red Badger
When the Bill of Rights was written, the Founders were perfectly fine with private ownership of cannon and Naval warships.
muskets were the standard field issue of the day... the equivalent of todays M4
are they ok with the average citizen owning an M4 ?
of course, it doesn’t matter whether or not they’re ok with it... as it’s not up to them how a person defends themselves against whatever threat they encounter.
10
posted on
12/13/2023 9:59:47 AM PST
by
sten
(fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
To: Red Badger
It’ll have to go to SCOTUS, at least in the case of IL. SCOIL already gave the green light to ban basically all semi-auto rifles, and any already owned by the public have to be registered with the state by January 1, 2024. I think the refusal rate will be rather high.
11
posted on
12/13/2023 10:03:18 AM PST
by
Tacrolimus1mg
(Do no harm, but take no sh!t.)
To: Red Badger
I can assault you with a can of spam:-)
12
posted on
12/13/2023 10:04:23 AM PST
by
Harpotoo
(Being a socialist is a lot easier than having to WORK like the rest of US:-))
To: Red Badger
Just like leftists always do, they lie about the verbiage or change definitions to words they do t like. The Supreme Court decisions refer to weapons “in common use for all legal purposes” The lying left conveniently made up their own definition that appears nowhere in any Supreme Court ruling. If changes “in common use for all legal purposes” to “common use for self defense”.
Evil liars.
To: Red Badger
Soros controlled , bought and paid for Democrat AGs ?
To: Red Badger
They're deliberately twisting the "in common use" phrase from
Heller to mean arms actually used in self-defense vs. merely possessed for self-defense.
It's a legal sophistry, but it's being used by them and some circuits (like the 7th in Chicago) to gut Heller and Bruen by creating a classification of "military arms" civilians are not allowed to have.
15
posted on
12/13/2023 10:09:37 AM PST
by
pierrem15
("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens" )
To: Red Badger; mylife; Joe Brower; MaxMax; Randy Larsen; waterhill; Envisioning; AZ .44 MAG; umgud; ...
RKBA Ping List![](https://images46.fotki.com/v101/photos/2/292835/5750312/2ndamendment2-vi.jpg)
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.
16
posted on
12/13/2023 10:16:15 AM PST
by
PROCON
(Sic Semper Tyrannis)
To: sten
“...the Founders were perfectly fine with private ownership of cannon...”
You must be mistaken. President Biden has repeatedly told us, “You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed...” He was a full Professor at the University of Pennsylvania and is a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than you or I.
/s
17
posted on
12/13/2023 10:18:54 AM PST
by
hanamizu
( )
To: pierrem15
>. They're deliberately twisting the "in common use" phrase from Heller to mean arms actually used in self-defense vs. merely possessed for self-defense.We know from Federalist 46 the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is as a backstop against Federal tyranny via a militia of common citizens :
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
In other words it is clearly unconstitutional to prevent civilians from owning military arms.
18
posted on
12/13/2023 10:20:20 AM PST
by
SecondAmendment
(The history of the present Federal Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations ...)
To: Brooklyn Attitude
NFA is unconstitutional on its face. As are the follow-up unconstitutional laws. It’s past time to flush these maggots out of any government position whatsoever.
19
posted on
12/13/2023 10:25:35 AM PST
by
curious7
To: Red Badger
In an amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Miller v. Bonta, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and Massachusetts AG Andrea Campbell and the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington contend that California’s ban doesn’t violate the Second Amendment because the arms that are prohibited aren’t protected by the Constitution in the first place. Too cute by half.
20
posted on
12/13/2023 10:28:47 AM PST
by
sauropod
(The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson