Federal Judge Rules AR-15′s Are “Dangerous and Unusual,” Not Protected by 2nd Amendment All I can say is that when they finally get the civil war they are fomenting, no black robe will protect them from things "dangerous and unusual." In fact, they will discover that ARs are not unusual, not by a long a long shot. (Bad pun intended.)
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Interesting theory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm dusting off my old copy of The Anarchist Cookbook. Anyone know if it's been updated since the 60's?
The Devil is always in the details. It may seem to be academic, but it helps to understand how they get away with this nonsense. Notice she is titled a "U.S.District Court judge" NOT a magistrate in a "district court of the united States"...Article IV Section 3 gives no power to legislators
that would create an anti-constitutional court
as anti-constitutionalists ( progressives)
would have us believe, operating within
the 50 united States. The only purpose of these cou
rts is to fleece the People. Progressives
deceitfully seized the name of these courts as “UNI
TED STATES DISTRICT COURT”,
thereby creating a foreign court, which is a fictit
ious corporation used to conceal fraud..- We the People gave authority to congress to create
“district courts of the United States” a/k/a
Article III inferior courts to the one Supreme Cour
t.
..."
The words 'district court of the United States' com
monly describe
constitutional courts created under Article III of
the Constitution, not the
legislative courts which have long been the courts
of the Territories
." [Mookini
v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201, 205, 58 S.Ct. 543, 545, 82 L
.Ed. 748. (See also
Longshoremen v. Juneau Spr
Corp., 324 U.S. 237;
Reynolds v. U.S., 98
, 324 U.S. 237;
U.S. 145, 154; McAlister v. U.S., 141 U.S. 174; U.S
. v. Burroughs, 289 U.S.
My point to all this is: BAR attorneys have created a fiction in all 3 branches of Gov't and until the People understand it they're going to keep on pulling this smoke and mirrors magic show. Knowledge is power, but keep that copy of "Anarchist Cookbook" handy because the magicians aren't easily going to leave the stage.
This is interesting and poses a few questions for me.
Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.
'The court seriously doubts that the banned long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes,'
Just that part of the judge's statement raises the question of
Why the Feds and law enforcement have them if they're not commonly possessed for lawful purposes ?
I think we probably all agree that we know why they have them, and it's not to defend us.
To take that line of thinking a step further, why are they called 'assault weapons' if owned by members of the general population and 'personal defense weapons' if carried by the Feds or law enforcement ??
Double talk, double standards, and more bull shit room the left.
I can imagine this broad as she raises her head from between Hillarys' thighs, and says, "Got is good, yeah?"
I suspect this ruling won't go very far. Probably overturned by the next judge that gets to it, even though I am cynical about all judges. Anyway in the end it doesn't matter what judges say or do. We can only ever be disarmed if we agree to be.
Post a Comment