There’s an interesting – if not devious – trend emerging in some Second Amendment cases. The first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruentest is to ask whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment which protects a pre-existing “right to keep and bear arms.” Some lower courts in purporting to apply the Bruen test are upholding gun control laws by holding that you do not have a Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.
That’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The ability to freely approach the gun counter to legally purchase a firearm is paramount to exercising the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. There is no “keeping” of firearms if there is no legal right to lawfully acquire those same firearms. The ramifications of this flawed legal reasoning are self-evident. The government could simply ban the buying (and selling) of firearms and therefore eviscerate the Second Amendment all without infringing upon the right.
Right to Buy
The most recent example comes from New Mexico, where a federal district court judge refused to preliminarily enjoin the state’s seven-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. There were several serious concerns with this decision, including the judge’s determination that the lengthy waiting period doesn’t constrain the rights to keep and bear arms. The judge contended that the waiting period only minimally burdens the “ancillary right to acquire firearms.”
That might come as news to an individual facing imminent threat to their safety or even their life. A woman who is the victim of domestic violence who considers purchasing a firearm to protect herself and her family could argue that the state’s seven-day waiting period is a seven-day ban on her ability to lawfully keep and bear arms when she knows there’s a threat to her life.
That wasn’t the worst of it. The same judge concluded that the waiting-period law is presumptively constitutional” given that the first waiting period laws were enacted in the 1920s – long after U.S. Constitution was ratified, and the 14th Amendment adopted. The judge even pointed to past, discriminatory laws that restricted the sale of firearms to slaves, freedmen and Native Americans. It is astonishing that a federal judge relied on racist laws that have been repudiated by the courts and American society to justify a gun control law.
However, that’s not what the Supreme Court held in the Bruen decision. That test, the Court said, is that gun control laws must have a “history and tradition” consistent with when the Second Amendment was signed into law in 1791 at the nation’s founding.
Court Concerns
It would be tempting to dismiss this judge’s decision as a “one-off” aberration. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. A 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explicitly said that there is no Second Amendment right to purchase a second handgun within a 90-day window of purchasing a previous handgun.
“The question thus becomes whether a waiting period before the purchase of a second handgun is conduct covered by the text of the Second Amendment. It is not,” the court ruled in its opinion of Knight v. City of New York.
What the court is saying is that the government can ration the exercise of a Constitutionally-protected right, in this case, to just once every 90 days. This would be unthinkable if a court ruled that a law-abiding American could only exercise their rights to free speech or attend a church, mosque of synagogue of their choosing every three months. The federal court here is relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right, that Justice Clarence Thomas has warned about.
That line of thinking wasn’t limited to New York. The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont upheld the state’s waiting-period law, in Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs v. Birmingham this year, by claiming there’s no Second Amendment right to legally purchasing a firearm.
“The Court finds that the relevant conduct – acquiring a firearm through a commercial transaction on-demand – is not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” wrote Judge William Sessions III. He quizzically added, “Plaintiffs may keep and bear arms without immediately acquiring them.”
That defies logic. It is impossible to legally keep and bear anything without the ability to lawfully purchase it first.
In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled against Rocky Mountain Gun Owners seeking to enjoin a three-day-waiting period law signed by Gov. Jared Polis. In this decision, the federal court ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t explicitly say anything about legally acquiring a firearm.
“From this reading of the plain text, it is clear the relevant conduct impacted by the waiting period – the receipt of a paid-for firearm without delay – is not covered,” the decision reads, adding, “To ‘keep,’ under the definitions provided in Heller, meant to retain an object one already possessed. It did not mean to receive a newly paid-for item, and it certainly did not mean to receive that item without delay. Likewise, ‘hav[ing] weapons’ indicates the weapons are already in one’s possession, not that one is receiving them.”
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in 2023 in U.S. v. King that there is no right to buy and sell firearms. In fact, Judge Joseph Leeson Jr. clearly states that it is a factor he didn’t – and wouldn’t – consider, writing, “…the Court looks at the Second Amendment’s plain text; it does not consider ‘implicit’ rights that may be lurking beneath the surface of the plain text.”
“Even if the Court assumed that there is an implicit right in the Second Amendment to buy and sell firearms in order to keep and bear arms, that is not the same thing as a right to buy and sell firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms,” Judge Leeson wrote. “In other words, the Second Amendment does not protect the commercial dealing of firearms.” Of course, while Heller said commercial regulations could be presumptively valid, it never suggested that the buying and selling of commonly used “arms” could be banned.
Governors Knew in 2020
Juxtapose that with governors who, just four years ago, quickly reversed their policies to order firearm retailers to close their doors during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. New Jersey’s Gov. Phil Murphy reversed course from his initial ordering of gun stores to be closed. He recognized that denying the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally obtain a firearm is denying them the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Pennsylvania’s former Gov. Tom Wolf did the same, even after Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court denied a challenge to the order. The quiet about-face was in light of what could have become a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.
A federal judge ordered former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker to allow firearm retailers there to reopen. The judge ordering the injunction wrote, “The exigencies surrounding this viral pandemic both justify and necessitate changes in the manner in which people live their lives and conduct their daily business. However, this emergency – like any other emergency – has its constitutional limits. It would not justify a prior restraint on speech, nor a suspension of the right to vote. Just the same, it does not justify a ban on obtaining guns and ammunition.”
Divorcing the right to freely approach the gun counter at a firearm retailer and the rights to keep and bear arms is a dangerous slope. Firearms are legal products, available for anyone to freely purchase who is over the age of 18 for long guns or 21 for handguns, provided that individual is purchasing the firearm for him or herself and can pass the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Conditioning that right – whether through waiting periods which are an attempt to delay the exercise of that right – or by unmooring the right to legally purchase a firearm is a violation of the rights that belong to the people.
Imagine a court ruling that the First Amendment doesn’t include the right to buy a book. Or a law that said you can only buy a newspaper after waiting seven days. Or a law that limits how many books you can buy in a month. Or a law in which the government decides which books you are allowed to buy and read? Obviously, no one would tolerate such laws. So why is it acceptable for Second Amendment rights? The answer, sadly, is that despite the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions, because some legislative bodies and judges treat the Second Amendment as a “second class right.”
“Imagine a court ruling that the First Amendment doesn’t include the right to buy a book. Or a law that said you can only buy a newspaper after waiting seven days. Or a law that limits how many books you can buy in a month. Or a law in which the government decides which books you are allowed to buy and read?”
Actually, almost the same has been happening for at least the past 2 POTUS election cycles via “Big Tech”, often at the urging of the DOJ.
Making certain pertinent information is buried deeply when using common search engines is a sure way to frustrate people educating themselves on current events issues or controversy brought into the public arena by various political candidates. The covering up of Biden’s obvious dementia, as well as the now-frantic scrubbing of the common idiocy presented by VP Harris are 2 prime examples.
You mean burying the pertinent information that Donald Trump and Republicans don’t really give a shit about your gun rights?
“The 2024 GOP Platform Barely Mentions Gun Rights
The party’s neglect of the issue is consistent with its domination by Donald Trump, who pays lip service to the Second Amendment but has never been a true believer.
JACOB SULLUM | 7.10.2024 4:00 PM
“This time around, the Republican National Committee (RNC) did approve a platform. But as The Reload’s Jake Fogleman notes, the RNC has excised any mention of the Second Amendment except for a passing reference.
That reference appears in a list of “twenty promises that we will accomplish
very quickly when we win the White House and Republican Majorities in the House and Senate.” The seventh promise says Republicans will “defend our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms.”
This cursory treatment of the Second Amendment is consistent with the reality that the current Republican Party wants whatever former President Donald Trump wants. Despite his lip service to the right of armed self-defense, Trump has never been a true believer, as his flirtation with the Democratic gun control agenda after the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas illustrated.
In addition to imposing a unilateral ban on bump stocks that was recently overturned by the Supreme Court, Trump met with members of Congress in February 2018 to discuss gun regulation. During that meeting, he spoke favorably of requiring background checks for all gun transfers, raising the minimum age for buying long guns, preemptively confiscating guns from people who might be dangerous, and even banning so-called assault weapons, to the visible delight of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.).“
https://reason.com/2024/07/10/the-2024-gop-platform-offers-only-a-passing-reference-to-the-second-amendment/
MINOR49er. Sorry Old Boy but, the Republican Platform most certainly says the party wishes to PROTECT the Right to Bear Arms. Here it is:
To make clear our commitment, we offer to the American people the 2024 GOP Platform to Make America Great Again! It is a forward-looking Agenda that begins with the following twenty promises that we will accomplish very quickly when we win the White House and Republican Majorities in the House and Senate.
SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION
CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY
END INFLATION, AND MAKE AMERICA AFFORDABLE AGAIN
MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR!
STOP OUTSOURCING, AND TURN THE UNITED STATES INTO A MANUFACTURING SUPERPOWER
LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS!
DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
So as usual you are caught spreading Leftist DEMONcRAT propaganda. In other words. OUTRIGHT LIES!
Right, they mentioned the RKBA as one item in a laundry list, nothing more as I pointed out above.
MajorIdiot,
As I’ve already explicated, I don’t consider Trump a particular 2A champion. Name me the Presidential candidate from EITHER Party in the last 20 years who unequivocally was. As usual, your lying propaganda spin on the Leftist/fascist delusion implies that Trump and the Republicans are somehow WORSE on the 2A than are the Leftist/fascist Dimocrats . . . a proposition which is so false, it is absurd on its face (kinda like you, chump).
While I don’t expect Trump to be a 2A champion, I can’t imagine him being HALF the raging dumpster fire Kackling Kamala to be. And, while I don’t consider either of them particularly intelligent, and Trump is clearly a midwit loudmouth, Kamala Harris is a babbling nitwit, incapable of uttering a coherent sentence in the English language. Oh, AND the fact that she and her campaign are busy memory-holing EVERY policy position she ran on in 2020 (EXCEPT abortion).
We expect you to be a lying idiot, MajorLiar, and you never disappoint. Consume excrement and expire, you lying, Leftist/fascist troll.
Stated perfectly!
Miner49er,
There is no doubt that some (many?) Republicans fail to support the Second Amendment, and some (few?) even oppose the Second Amendment.
And there is no doubt that most Democrats actively oppose the Second Amendment.
As with pretty much everything in life, nothing is ever perfect. That being the case, we have to vote for the candidates who are the best match–however imperfect–with our individual priorities. When it comes to the Second Amendment, virtually all Republican candidates are a better match than virtually all Democrats. Hence, if the Second Amendment is a significant priority, your best bet is to vote for Republican candidates.
I believe it is unlikely that Miner49er is going to vote Republican in 2024.
“I believe it is unlikely that Miner49er is going to vote Republican in 2024“
You know, I wish I could say I agree with you but that may change if the Republicans try another fake elector scheme. I may not have control of my vote.
Fortunately, many of Trump’s co-conspirators have now turned state’s evidence and are doing the right thing by providing testimony against Donald Trump and his gang:
“Former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis to cooperate with prosecutors in Arizona ‘fake electors’ case
Ellis initially pleaded not guilty when the charges were unveiled earlier this year. The charges against her are now being dropped.
Aug. 5, 2024, 4:05 PM EDT / Updated Aug. 5, 2024, 4:25 PM EDT
By Alex Tabet and Vaughn Hillyard
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office announced Monday that Jenna Ellis, a former Donald Trump attorney and one of the 18 defendants in the Arizona “fake electors” case stemming from the 2020 election, is cooperating with the prosecution.
Ellis signed the cooperation agreement Monday morning, according to the announcement, which said prosecutors are dropping the charges against her.“
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna165122
Lol cool it with the tinfoil blueanon
MajorLiar,
Oh, HEAVEN FORFEND that your vote may not result in the electors you want!! My concern is the much more serious, and REAL concern (as witness the Dimocrats shenanigans in every election since Mayor Daly stole Illinois for Kennedy). Ballot harvesting, voter intimidation, fanatically opposing ANY effort to increase ballot security or cleaning up outdated registration lists. You remain too stupid to insult.
Uh, Minor: nothing you wrote in your diatribe response has any reference to my post.
But as far as trying to make it appear that the democrats might be better 2A supporters than Republicans because of planks or references in a platform? Actions over 45 years speak louder than words.
Personally, I see no need for either myself, nor Republicans to even mention the obvious: that Americans were always recognized in their Constitution to possess the God-given right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government via the right and ability to have and use whatever arms would be necessary to preserve the free state. Rejecting that notion, as well as insisting that government knows best (so long as said government is controlled by the elite bedwetters like yourself) is a founding principle of the democrats, and the democrat socialists, which is really what the old democrat party has become. A long way from the old, George Wallace southern democrats who controlled the party up until the late 1960s.
So …..you’re voting for Kamala then?
they never stop trying…
RE: “Imagine a court ruling that the First Amendment doesn’t include the right to buy a book. Or a law that said you can only buy a newspaper after waiting seven days. Or a law that limits how many books you can buy in a month. Or a law in which the government decides which books you are allowed to buy and read? Obviously, no one would tolerate such laws.
Imagine an American court providing standing for a Diabolical Agenda Historical Analogies Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide. Imagine self described on point so called Defenders of The Second Amendment failing to Define Gun Control by its Diabolical History for the court and America…No one has to imagine the aforementioned because zipped lipped gutless wonders make it Reality…and it all flies right over the heads of Gun Talking blowbags.
“a Diabolical Agenda“
Holy Toledo, you may be right, the devil could be involved!
“GOP Senate candidate Hung Cao warns of ‘witchcraft’ happening in California: ‘We can’t let that happen in Virginia’
Bryan Metzger Jul 27, 2023, 12:45 PM ET
Jim Stone/Handout via Reuters
Hung Cao, a former GOP House nominee, is now running for Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine’s seat.
He warned in a recent interview that “witchcraft” is happening in California.
Cao, a Vietnamese refugee, also said that he’s African-American because he “grew up in Africa too.”
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/courts-attack-second-amendment-right-to-buy-firearms/
Friggin’ hilarious, the whole world is laughing at the Republicans.
Did the calling republicans weird for normal stuff fall through already? Really going to use the social shame approach of unknown losers laughing at someone? Did you scrape through the bottom of the barrel already?
“calling republicans weird for normal stuff“
You think claiming there are witches in control in the state of Virginia is “normal stuff”?
This is the Republican National Senatorial Campaign’s candidate for the United States Senate from the Commonwealth of Virginia, not some “unknown loser”.
This is Donald Trump‘s hand-picked candidate, he won the Republican primary.
“Trump-backed candidate wins Virginia’s Republican Senate primary to take on Tim Kaine
Sen Tim Kaine has served as senator since 2013
By Julia Johnson Fox News
Published June 18, 2024 7:31pm EDT Updated June 19, 2024 12:52am EDT“
The whole world is laughing at the Republicans.
Lol who gives a fuck what weirdo’s, retards, and losers laugh at? And witches figurative and literal are way less weird than that rainbow religion.
MajorLiar,
“Cao, a Vietnamese refugee, also said that he’s African-American because he “grew up in Africa too.”
Which, of course, makes him FAR more “African-American” than Kamala “Kneepads” Harris is. And Elon Musk is more “African-American” than 99% of American blacks, you complete moron.
You can have all the cake you want you just can’t buy any and we’re working really hard to make sure you can’t bake your own either but you can totally have all you want.
Waiting periods are a good idea, really. Your plumbing is backed up, and you want to purchase some Drano? A 3 to 30 day waiting period is perfectly reasonable. You may very well decide not to take those harmful chemicals into your home during that waiting period. And, AC coolant. Just because your car is unbearably hot today, doesn’t mean the AC won’t start working sometime next week. And, clothing. Putting a waiting period on that new dress is a good idea, because you’ll decide that it really doesn’t match anything you already own. Yeah, waiting periods make sense for a lot of things. Buying a car needs a waiting period. There is no good rationale for you driving a car home on the same day you purchase it. A 90 day waiting period seems reasonable. Let’s put waiting periods on EVERY PURCHASE!!
The legal contortions that result in these ridiculous rulings are worthy of professional acrobats and circus side shows. But I think it’s obvious that these lower court judges are trying to overload the higher courts dockets, including the US Supreme Court, to delay final judgements as long as possible and make it prohibitively expensive to pursue.
Next they’ll be saying the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say you can buy ammo nor does it state you can load a gun. Utterly ridiculous arguments with no basis in logic or the common sense they talk about.
Truth is these judges don’t care and are using their elevated status to do as they please.
Joe Biden has a built in waiting period, at some point next week or month he will maybe remember what he wanted to say today.
I’m not a lawyer by any stretch, but I’ve always wondered why the NRA with all their legal eagles never confronted this problem in a fairly simple ( to me ) way. Go way back to the old “poll taxes”. Declared wrong because you’re depriving a citizen of a right by charging them for it. Look at Cali. 11% on everything. Other states will follow. This is not looking good, folks…stock up, lock up, and be ready…
I’m going to explain the flaw in this line of thinking.
“A 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explicitly said that there is no Second Amendment right to purchase a second handgun within a 90-day window of purchasing a previous handgun.”
According to those who support waiting periods, the point is what they call a cooling-off period, a time to prevent an angry or upset person from buying a firearm and using it in a criminal manner. OK, I can understand this line of thinking. I don’t support it, but I can understand it. However, they just added on “second handgun.” Now, here’s the rub. If you already have a first-handgun, what point is the cooling-off period for accruing the second-handgun?
Oh, see, that is why we have to have background checks and waiting periods on ammo as well. So, you already have a gun but we don’t want you to go using it so we have to limit ammo purchases.
What? you say you already have some ammo, well then we have to pass a law that says you have to lock up your gun and ammo in separate time-locked safes and the ammo will be available to you on every other Tuesday between 1 and 3 am and the gun available every third Thursday between 4 and 6 pm. See, that way you won’t harm yourself or anyone else. (unless you are going hunting, of course, in which case you can take one round with you)
Also, while we are ensuring people’s “safety”, let’s pass a law that says you are allowed to have a swimming pool on your property as long as each gallon of water in the pool has 50 lbs of portland cement added to it.
X – as is always the case when antis try to apply ‘logic’ (even fatally flawed versions) to gun issues they fall flat. For example the vaunted ‘cooling off’ period that they use to justify waiting periods, regardless of the length conveniently ignores the basic facts of acquiring a firearm. First the hot head has to depart the scene where they became ‘heated’ – travel to a firearm emporium, fill out forms, plop down cash for the gun and ammo, load it and return to the original scene and then shoot the person that ‘offended’ them. Think of the worst liar er um lawyer (keep getting them confused) that ya ever heard of NOT being able to make a presumptive case for pre-meditation.
NOPE – waiting periods has always been about ‘feel good’ attempts to ‘do something’.
one gun for each hand?
Hung Chow is that the judge’s name?
IF we are going to go all “history and tradition” we kinda need to get rid of the ATF, the NFA, the GCA, the etc. and the other thing and, well, all the uh, infringements. Would that were a couple hundred ball carriers in congress to make such a thing happen.
Lefties continue to push these anti-guns laws they know aren’t constitutional, especially post Bruen. But, they are practicing “death by a thousand cuts” knowing patriots tote the note for both sides….pro-2A via donations; anti-2A via taxes. They play the long game, capturing the income stream’n’hearts’n’minds of an enormous population in government teat suckers’n’free shit addicted Government Plantation Dwellers, transitioning our youth from traditional values, beliefs, knowing today’s patriots will one day die. As Ronald Reagan noted, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
It’s a win-win-no lose for them because we have not maintained current the fear of insurrection in any of them in 240+ years. They position insurrection as though it were a bad thing….ala Jan 6. Fortunately our Founders held a distinctly different slant on that action, being the original American insurrectionists
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson. And that is the why behind the Libturds’ anti-gun fetish. Protecting their own asses from armed patriots for what those tyrants are doing to America.
In Thomas Jefferson’s letter of 1787 to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams, postulates on the newly drafted Constitution and what it will mean. One of his statements succinctly deals with our situation today, and I quote: “What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.!” Our Founding Fathers dealt with a plethora of issues, and provided guidance accordingly; hoping it would never come to this! They gave us the guidance, we have to act ourselves. Let the enemy create the rules; play by the enemy’s rules; lose by the enemy’s rules. Vets have been kitting up on the wrong soil. As with charity, freedom begins at home.
And, for the millionth time:
Politicians with laws never stop bad guys with guns, evil intent.
They only control the good guys, which is their true agenda.
Too much wrong here, so not going to detail it all. However….
The only people who need a gun, two hundred plus years after the defeat of the British (BTW, Paul Revere actually said, “The regulars are coming.”, not “the British are coming”), are those who must have a firearm as a sole means of putting food on the table, or in the freezer.
The whole idea that the government would end up a tranny is pure poppycock (and balderdash). We live in a modern, civilized, just and inclusive society. If govt officials decide to exceed their authority, we have elections that put term limits on them. We are well beyond the violence and depravation of the late 1770s. Don’t worry; be happy.
“The whole idea that the government would end up a tranny”
Sam Brinton, Rachel Levine, and others would like a word with you.
“Sam Brinton, Rachel Levine, and others would like a word with you.”
I see you caught the gag. Hope the commentary was entertaining.
Victor,
You obviously aren’t sufficiently familiar with Sam’s gift for sarcasm and parody. (Although I can’t be snotty about it; Sam’s caught me out a couple of times!)
They claim the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t cover the right to buy or build arms?
That’s just like saying that the 1st Amendment right to free speech covers only people’s right to own books and newspapers, not their right to buy books and newspapers, and not the right to publish books or newspapers. Absurd. If no books or newspapers can be written, then nobody can own or read them.
Or it’s like saying the 1st Amendment freedom of religion says you have the right to attend church, synagogue, or mosque, but it doesn’t allow the right to build churches, synagogues, or mosques. Equally absurd. If no churches, synagogues, or mosques can be built, then nobody can attend them.
Let me make this response very simple. Continued nonsense like this in the face of people buying over a million firearms a month is going to lead to one sad outcome for these Leftists. They are going to create an environment with these ridiculous laws and judicial responses that forces law abiding citizens to simply say enough is enough and start a civil war that the Left cannot win. You reap what you sow and if you try to turn a Republic with a history of freedom into a Dictatorship where there is none you are asking for a major act of retribution. That’s my opinion.
I encourage this, because it can only end one way: No more 4473’s or background checks.
“It is astonishing that a federal judge relied on racist laws that have been repudiated by the courts and American society to justify a gun control law.”
No it isn’t. This is exactly what NYS did to defend their own post-Bruen, anti-2A hate lawfare. That was two years ago, and NYers are STILL being denied their rights.
Always the foolish idea that some how these dumb laws and court decisions will in some way prevent some criminal or evil act of violence. As if those with criminal or evil intent will in any way be concerned with a few words on paper. \Truth is none of these rulings, court decisions, laws, regulations, or bans are being put forth for any reason but to protect the bureaucrats, politicians, or wanna be dictators from righteous retribution of their real or potential victims. Or to prevent the victims of violence or threat of violence from defending themselves.