Friday, March 22, 2013

Bans of so-called 'assault weapons' may not hold up to Supreme Court scrutiny

Furthermore, if the Court does hear such a case, and sides with the forcible citizen disarmament lobby, the fight--the real fight, when the statists' "cold war" against gun ownership goes hot--will only then begin. Still, when the chance remains to settle the issue without killing anyone, morality demands pursuing that chance.


Anonymous said...

If the '34, '68, and '86 laws have been found to be constitutional, thinking the 9 oligarchs in DC are going to save us when DiFi's bill passes is foolish hope.

The ban will not be stopped from passing, but marksmanship and IEDs will prevent its enforcement.

SWIFT said...

..."morality demands pursuing that chance". (While the court decides if banning assault rifles is constitutional.) But, if confiscation begins while the court drags it's feet, it will be too late to defend one's self and the Republic. Remember, the illegal gun confiscations after Katrina, resulted in many hundreds of guns not being returned to their lawful owners after all these years. Fight first; talk about it later. The common sense approach!

Jimmy the Saint said...

"May not hold up" - perhaps, but with John "I'll Just Rewrite The Law To Make It Acceptable" Roberts as C.J., I wouldn't hold my breath on it. The elites tend to get what they want.

BadCyborg said...

Morality may, indeed demand pursuing the chance that SCOTUS may not uphold a ban - although how such a minor issue as a SCOTUS ruling would affect decision making at the WH - prudence would also demand continued preparation for the possibility that SCOTUS might well uphold the ban. As a character in a film I saw years ago put it, "Trust Allah - but tie up your camel."

To paraphrase Stalin, "How many divisions does the SCOTUS have?"

Anonymous said...

Q: Pick one assault weapon to ban;
frying pan
walking stick

Trick question- They're ALL "assault weapons". But they're NOT assault rifles.

B Woodman

Anonymous said...

Since we have allowed "Morality" to become a relative concept, much to our enemies liking, it also allows us to be very subjective in its application.. as we, the defenders of rights, have every right to be.

Yank lll

Anonymous said...

Sure, sure - government can be expected to limit itself - just look at all the historical evidence.