1007
Comments (67)
sorted by:
51
Brickapede2 51 points ago +51 / -0

So that “and bear” language means nothing, eh?

47
dr_drumpf 47 points ago +47 / -0

The Constitution means nothing to these Commies.

2
YourMamma57 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ummmm where are all these judges Trump got in service?

5
dr_drumpf 5 points ago +5 / -0

The reason he got so many through is they were all RINO approved Communists.

2
TheTuckerDiaries 2 points ago +3 / -1

Exactly those were Mitch’s judges not Trump’s.

32
texanNut [S] 32 points ago +32 / -0

Didn't you know that the constitution is language-fluid? Why bother changing the constitution when you can change definitions of words instead? (Insert Tapping head meme here)

19
Brickapede2 19 points ago +19 / -0

Yep, the only legal document I I know of that is that way. Oh, and the Civil Rights Act that somehow applies to gender identity even though it says “sex” (thanks, Gorsuch).

Oddly, I can’t change the meaning of my long term lease or long term purchasing contracts. Weird.

12
kornesque 12 points ago +12 / -0

"Keep means in a vault in the state armory, and bear means the cost of funding all the permits to be allowed to keep." -Kavanaugh

10
HuggableBear 10 points ago +10 / -0

Just a quick reminder that the founders knew these idiots would try to pull shit like this and gave us the Ninth Amendment to prevent it.

This should be challenged at every level, in every state, in every case, regardless of precedent.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, you have to prove that we specifically don't have a right to do something in order to prevent us from doing it. Saying that the Constitution doesn't guarantee it specifically isn't good enough, because it does specifically guarantee it, it just doesn't name it.

2
markolbb 2 points ago +3 / -1

MOOOOOT!!

39
YOLOSwag_McFartnut 39 points ago +39 / -0

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How can something so fucking simple be so misconstrued?

26
NotAPuma 26 points ago +27 / -1

They always bring up the Militia Part, but fail to realize WE ARE THE MILITIA

13
Skeeter_N_CO 13 points ago +13 / -0

And now they investigate you as an extremist if you join a militia. So you have no right to a gun unless you are in a well regulated militia, but if you join a militia, we will harass you and threaten your liberty. Gotta love liberal logic!!!

5
sickofaltspin 5 points ago +5 / -0

Let's compare:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

vs

Because all firearms are evil and no human being should be allowed to even cast their eye upon one, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Weird, the limitation on government in both of of those examples is completely unchanged.

For the glowsticks reading this, fuck off an apologize for Ruby Ridge you fucking baby killers.

1
NotAPuma 1 point ago +1 / -0

You forgot WACO

1
sickofaltspin 1 point ago +1 / -0

One step at a time.

I shall piss on Lon Hourichi's grave though.

4
Braineack 4 points ago +4 / -0

It says the people.

1
FromSethWithLove 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh, people? To bad we're only sub human slaves now

3
swampthingy 3 points ago +3 / -0

It isn't that they misunderstand it. They don't like it. And increasingly so, law isn't what the law actually says. It is what they decide and they prosecute or ignore what they want.

26
GarudaDarkblack 26 points ago +26 / -0

Free men don't ask.

9
swampthingy 9 points ago +9 / -0

Nailed it. And if you're not free, you know you need someone's permission.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
18
RolandDelacroix 18 points ago +18 / -0

WTF this goes directly against a supreme court decision. Illinois was FORCED to develop a CCW law or have it imposed on them.

13
quotahire 13 points ago +13 / -0

They really want the whites to rise up don't they? Well, come for the guns. That's about the most obvious red line I know for almost anyone.

9
Haywood_Jablome 9 points ago +10 / -1

They want the patriotic whites to rise up so they can eliminate us in one fell swoop. The beta cucks will remain in order to show the low IQ’s how to run things

6
quotahire 6 points ago +6 / -0

people are too afraid and don't yet feel taking that big first step is justified yet. If they come for the guns, that will change for millions of people

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
13
AlabamaSlamma 13 points ago +13 / -0

As of right now it's totally legal. You don't even need all that cloak and dagger. You just 3d print a gun and take it to the range and show the cops on the way.

Nothing illegal about that, yet

They're working very hard to change that though

6
Trump2024 6 points ago +6 / -0

Forgive me if I skip the "show the cops on the way" step. Regardless of how legal it is I don't like to put myself on their radar.

3
NotAPuma 3 points ago +3 / -0

Uh. The Government doesn't have to know everything...

2
RolandDelacroix 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, and already exists.

9
xxxMAGA420xxx 9 points ago +9 / -0

Blatantly unconstitutional.

9
hallway_monitor 9 points ago +9 / -0

Yea, we'll see if AK, AZ and MT have anything to say about this..

5
LegalEagle22 5 points ago +5 / -0

The ruling basically said that the states in question have the right to limit open carry laws if they choose to. So the 9th circuit basically said yes, they do get to have something to say about it.

8
AmericanChevalier 8 points ago +12 / -4

The bible, clearly states that Judges determine the righteousness of a nation.

And wicked ones will destroy a nation.

6
LegalEagle22 6 points ago +8 / -2

Well that's an inflammatory statement. The actual statement is that they're holding up state's rights to limit right to carry by their own laws:

State governments have the right to limit the right of individuals to carry guns in public, requiring them to show urgency or need and be of "high moral character," the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found on Wednesday, dismissing an action challenging Hawaii's firearm licensing law.

"The en banc court affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action challenging Hawaii's firearm licensing law, Hawaii Revised Statutes � 134-9(a), which requires that residents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate the urgency or the need to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character and must be 'engaged in the protection of life and property,'" the court said.

EDIT: It also took me less than 1 minute to research this. People really need to stop taking tweets, from anyone but especially someone as politically motivated as the NRA, at face value.

6
AngeredKabar 6 points ago +6 / -0

Color me shocked that the NRA hypes for donations.

And folks: Yes, they are going to try to take your guns. Yes, the Courts have been infiltrated by commie faggots. The NRA is ineffective.

Save your money to buy ammo and keep living.

4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
1
Ylidk 1 point ago +1 / -0

Except states don't have the authority to restrict constitutional rights, and a court saying they do is illegitimate and unconstitutional itself

4
doejohnblowjoe 4 points ago +4 / -0

Once they blatantly rule against the Constitution, they are traitors and should be treated as such. Their rulings are to be ignored.

2
NavySTG 2 points ago +2 / -0

NRA.....HAHAHA!!! Compromise monkeys is all they are.

2
TGNX 2 points ago +2 / -0

ahem

Shall not be infringed.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
TrancePhreak 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is an attempt to destroy the 2nd amendment by making it illegal to have your gun anywhere but your home.

2
Ebbie8708 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good luck when the next governor of Arizona is a Dem for the first time ever and they try to implement gun laws here.

2
cyberwar 2 points ago +2 / -0

the 9th circus must be abolished for anti constitutional conspiracy

2
kornesque 2 points ago +2 / -0

...shall not be infringed."

"We'll see about THAT."

2
Trump2024 2 points ago +2 / -0

OOH! The NRA is going to get involved? I can feel the judge trembling all the way to my house.

1
romanhelmet 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rectify what? Just fucking ignore it. It works.

1
wolfsettler 1 point ago +1 / -0

We need thousands of gun owners to march openly and oit a stop to this by PEACEFULLY PROTESTING and refusing to give up our guns or our gun rights.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Killinger 1 point ago +1 / -0

No this pretty much only affects CA and HI. Pretty sure everywhere else is an open carry state.

1
FromSethWithLove 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where our Hawaiian judge equivalent?!

1
Hexagon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ridiculous

1
Barthaneous 1 point ago +1 / -0

Time to stretch our second amendment rights , directly in the faces of all those involved.

1
JohnParker1 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Ninth circuit cannot create law only interpret it. Each State has it's own laws that stood then test of time under the scrutiny of the U.S. Constitution. They need to go back to their local Starbucks and figure out why that can't catch fish.

1
LesboPregnancyScare 1 point ago +1 / -0

no open or concealed carry in AK. LOL! that will never fly there, ever. Even the liberals there carry.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Supersonic-turtle 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can understand all of those except Montana like how the hell did that happen for Montana

1
ComebackKing 1 point ago +1 / -0

Holy fuck! I thought we were turning a corner when they put an injunction on the "high capacity" magazine ban.

-1
BasedNtruth -1 points ago +1 / -2

This shit cannot continue to stand. They’re stripping our God given Rights in broad daylight...

2
DickTick 2 points ago +3 / -1

Should probably read the case before you say that..... all they are saying is the states do in fact have a say so in the gun carry laws inside of their own borders

4
ApprenticeParty 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is just as dangerous. The state has no right, this is a right recognized by the constitution, not a right given. The only, "say so" they should have is, "Yes, sir!"

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
2
14DaysToFlatten 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks. Does your constitutional knowledge feel arcane/useless? I am wondering why I bothered learning it. It does not seem to matter.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0