obi judge says AR's are not protected by 2nd

[pacomdiver]

good call Streaker

[philadelphia patriot]

I hope the Supreme Court takes this case.

[Gun]

Don't worry, with a stroke of the pen, an executive order will ban AR15's, IF Kamala Harris gets elected president.

... and AR15's are weapons of war, so unless you are going to overthrow the govt., there is no need to have one.


I heard this on the internet, in a vid I posted (confused person in Cleveland), so you know it has got to be true.

[Pilot321]

Don't worry, with a stroke of the pen, an executive order will ban AR15's, IF Kamala Harris gets elected president.

... and AR15's are weapons of war, so unless you are going to overthrow the govt., there is no need to have one.


I heard this on the internet, in a vid I posted (confused person in Cleveland), so you know it has got to be true.

Today Gavin Newsome said weapons of GD mass destruction are NOT protected by the Second Amendment. So, I guess a semi auto, seventy year old design, fixed magazine rifle is a weapon of mass destruction? Well someone has to teach him why we have a Second Amendment. It is specifically so we DO have weapons like these to protect ourselves from elitist, scumbag, tyrannical politicians (rulers) like him! These criminals need a tar and feather party.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gavin...b01d8c978273a8

[TB3]

So I’d love to hear this judges opinion of just what type of guns the second amendment does cover? Revolvers? Lever guns? Why one and not the other? So many legitimate questions one could ask her. She clearly ignored heller, she is clearly ruling on her personal opinions and not precedent and facts. This is a troubling decision tho. There is no question that this ruling runs counter to heller tho so I don’t see how the Supreme Court would uphold if it got that far. These people need to stop..

[JenniferG]

No judge can be that stupid. The judge is a gun banner and the case was brought before his court because they know his stand on the Constitution.

[GunLawyer001]

First, there's no factual basis for the court concluding that AR-15's (as well as every other rifle that takes detachable mags and has a pistol grip) are "indistinguishable" from military M-16s, or that the difference between a machinegun and a semi-auto has no practical significance (try that argument when they catch you with an unregistered MG.)

Second, when the government abandons its own laws and the courts are no longer impartial arbiters of the truth, that's when we see the people in other nations rising up and stringing up the oppressors from lamp posts.

You have to allow the populace to at least believe that the government exists to serve them.

When you blatantly take that illusion away, you back the people into a corner. Once enough folks believe that the elections are rigged, that the deep state infestation is beyond cleaning, and that there is no path WITHIN THE RULES to take back their country, then they step outside of the rules and fight using Clinton Rules, which allow you to employ any tactic that works. Any tactic at all. And people die.

The American people are allowed to own a few thousand M-16's, and the prices run $20K and up. By contrast, we own MILLIONS of AR-15's and their clones. Add in all the Mini-14's and M-1 carbines and Garands and M1A's and every other mag-fed rifle, and we're undoubtedly looking at more than 50 million guns. That counts as "common use".

California is doing the equivalent of banning every Ford automobile and claiming that they are not common. And doing so because cars kill 40,000 people per year. With no evidence that banning Fords will save a single life, much less proof that the burden from banning all Fords is less than the benefit in saved lives.

This is a shameless political hack in a black robe, avoiding the need to justify an unconstitutional law. If the judge admitted that guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment, then the judge would need to do at least an "intermediate scrutiny" test, to see if the burden is less than the benefit. They would need to look at studies and history, and notice that banning guns never accelerates a murder trend downward. The judge would have to deal with the fact that 10 years of the Federal AWB had zero impact on crime.

By claiming that AR's and all similar guns are not protected by the 2nd at all, they cheated, and dodged the question. The court violated its oath and cheated the citizens of an impartial outcome.

And that's how you get a mob storming the Bastille.

[Defender]

So I’d love to hear this judges opinion of just what type of guns the second amendment does cover? Revolvers? Lever guns? Why one and not the other? So many legitimate questions one could ask her. She clearly ignored heller, she is clearly ruling on her personal opinions and not precedent and facts. This is a troubling decision tho. There is no question that this ruling runs counter to heller tho so I don’t see how the Supreme Court would uphold if it got that far. These people need to stop..

The only guns covered in this nitwit's mind are black powder muzzle loading rifles and pistols with flints as the ignition source. That's it!

[Defender]

No judge can be that stupid. The judge is a gun banner and the case was brought before his court because they know his stand on the Constitution.

This person doesn't have a stand on the Constitution, that document and the relevant Supreme Court decisions are ignored completely.

[Pilot321]

The courts have demonstrated time and again they are corrupt. All the State, Local, and most Federal laws are clear infringements on the Second Amendment. Yet they are allowed to stand. Why?