When a court knows the U.S. Constitution is being willfully and blatantly violated, but doesn't have the balls to do anything about it. See also: Standing.
I beg to differ on it being the wrong reasons, the reasoning was solid... When forced to use history and tradition (from the founding era) as the judge, you can see that the founding fathers had for all intents no desire to infringe, thus supporting the textural meaning of the 2nd's "shall not be infringed" that they authored. Who better to show what they intended when they authored the 2nd, then using their own actions?
Fuck "tradition" it's in the Constitution for a reason.
Be careful what you wish for, if you fuck tradition, the Constitution is no longer applicable and is moot, as it is literally the traditional foundation of this nation... Most of the world has no tradition of letting the population have a codified right to self-defense using arms, one should not be so hasty to dismiss that tradition if one cherishes exercising it...
That little parenthetical is where your point falls flat. Courts like this aren't ruling based on "tradition" solely from the founding era. These types of rulings take into account any sort of long-standing law, even if it was not from the "founding era."
Essentially what it means is that if they can sneak a law in that goes unchallenged for long enough, then future laws can use that as precedent and springboard off of it.
Reasons a particular law may go unchallenged can include the law going unenforced, leaving nobody able to actually challenge it, or the law being so narrow in scope that it doesn't actually matter except on principle, meaning nobody can challenge it.
The Constitution is clear on many issues. We don't need to rely on "tradition" where the Constitution is clear. The argument of "tradition" should only be permitted if it works in favor of the freedom of the people (i.e. it's tradition the government doesn't do something, even if they aren't explicitly forbid), but never when it works against the freedom of the people (i.e. it's tradition the government does something, even though it's clearly unconstitutional).
Courts like this aren't ruling based on "tradition" solely from the founding era.
And they are wrong in doing so, Bruen was pretty darn clear!
The burden then falls on respondents to show that New York’s
proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical
tradition of firearm regulation. To do so, respondents appeal to a variety of historical sources from the late 1200s to the early 1900s. But
when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635. The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the
Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates or postdates either time may not illuminate the scope of the right. With these
principles in mind, the Court concludes that respondents have failed
to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New
York’s proper-cause requirement
The bold is clear, “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” thus if you want to know the scope of the 2nd only the 1791 period analysis is applicable...
Any court not following that is wrong, they are not following SCOTUS precedent and have gone rogue and need to be overturned...
The Constitution is clear on many issues.
If you "fuck" tradition, there is no Constitution as we know it... You instead get the liberal interpretation that it's a living document that they can twist and apply to modern society's needs or wants on a whim an example is the Roe ruling where they entirely created a Constitutional right out of thin air with some epic mental gymnastics...
The argument of "tradition" should only be permitted if it works in favor of the freedom of the people
So you agree it's permitted here, as there is basically no tradition of infringing laws on the 2nd in the era the Supreme Court has limited that tradition reviews to...
I'm heavily involved in 2nd rights, I'm even on a pending plaintiff shortlist to sue my state shortly over their ban on ghost guns. I have been reading the lawsuits across this country, there is no history and tradition from the founding era supporting nearly any gun law... Thus you see states trying to twist Bruen's wording, because they know full well if the history and tradition test is followed probably 95% of all existing gun laws and pending gun laws are unconstitutional and fail...
If you "fuck" tradition, there is no Constitution as we know it.
Quit it with this retarded take. It is incredibly pedantic. You know what I am saying. The world's not a genie where you say "fuck tradition" and he chuckles, says "ok," then destroys the constitution, too, because you didn't realize that technically it is "just tradition" to follow our founding document.
You sound like a vaccinated liberal... No matter how you spin it, if you say "fuck tradition" you can't then shift to proclaiming something that is based on tradition is the rule of law, it's 100% being a hypocrite and you know it, but you can't admit your comment was you being stupid...
You are retarded. Pay attention to the context of what is being said. Nobody here is saying we should entirely disregard the tradition of following the Constitution. Clearly I'm saying we should disregard the tradition of not following the Constitution.
You sound like the type who supports the PATRIOT act because it says patriot right there in the name!
We are talking about Heller/Bruen, the tradition we are talking about is limited in the ruling to era that the 2nd was authored. This tradition of the era fully supports the plain wording of the 2nd, and that court made it clear that laws past later that wer in stark contrast to era laws, even if accepted and on the books for a long time, were not part of the history and tradition of the 2nd...
Have you even read Heller/Bruen? Do you understand the ruling? Because your argument is literally the same one being used by the anti-gunners that can't read Heller/Bruen trying to claim laws made in the 1900s are part of the history and tradition of the 2nd, something Heller/Bruen says is incorrect, they are not...
The Heller/Bruen ruling literally is saying the so-called history/tradition 'loophole' using modern gun laws, which many liberals would love to use, should not be used and that history and tradition when being used to enlighten us to the meaning of the 2nd are limited to the period in which the 2nd was being authored and adopted not the twisted interpretation 100 years later, that some pretend is the history and tradition when it's not...
There were some regulations at the time of the 2nd amendment, e.g., people had to drill once a week in the village square, their primary gun had to be in good working order.
Yea.. dueling was also legal. It's not hard to understand that they meant the citizens can have guns and use them how they see fit. It is not for the government to decide.
Not sure what the laws are in MN, but in WI, it is legal for 16-17 year olds to open carry a shotgun or long-barreled rifle. Pistols and short-barreled would be illegal to open carry.
Is it just me... Or is the dude having his holster backwards bugging anyone else? How is he goons draw that thing? Put his right hand up waving a finger saying "hold on a sec!" while cross drawing with his left arm?
That's not gonna end well for him. Cool tattoo though.
Sure, may be a part of it. I think also "out of sight, out of mind" for most normies. I'd rather conceal than open carry in most circumstances to keep the tactical advantage of surprise.
They have concealable 45acp options that are great. Most recommend 9mm these days. 9mm can reportedly blow a man's lungs right out of his chest, and you get more lead PEZ to share with every reload. Truth is, with good ammo, 9mm works and extra shots mean more when shtf.
Love me some 1911, but for a carry gun I want light and corrosion resistant.
S&W shield is pretty thin, but comfortable. Can carry a compact m&p if you want double stack.
Glock 19 is a bit bigger, but with a good holster and appropriate clothing is quite concealable. They have smaller ones too if you're a Glock guy.
All of the big manufacturers have good 9mm carry guns.
There is really no advantage to open carry over concealed carry.
Open carry doesn't just draw the attention of couch fainters, it makes you a target if someone does start shooting. Conceal carries the element of surprise, pun unintended. Conceal carrying doesn't make your firearm any less accessible. But open carry does make your gun more accessible to being unholstered by someone other than you.
Open carry really only works well in like company where everyone's open carrying and you can make a collective statement: i.e. "We're armed." Suitable for certain venues.
When I'm carrying my conceal, if I really care to make it obvious I just don't put it in its pocket sheathe so I print harder than a ballot machine at 3am.
I'd be surprised if many if those limp wristed faggots could handle a 10mm.. sorry I heard was that the FBI needed the .40S&W (shortened 10mm) because 10mm was too strong for them.
Not sure how many would consider a 10mm concealable (outside of winter carry) either.
Ammo has come a long way. Revolvers sucked because they were largely limited to 6 shots and most cops can't reload like Jerry Miculek. 38 special wasn't that great either.
Shot placement matters more then bullet size. A shot between the eyes with a 380ACP will kill a man faster than a 50AE to the foot. More bullets and less recoil tends to be a winning combo.
In the end, any gun you carry is better than the one you have at home.. find one that you can comfortable and accurately shoot, then practice. Be safe.
Nothing wrong with a 45. Around here that's a favorite number.
I hear younger people sometimes call it .45AARP, but I think that's dumb. It has done it's job reliably since inception and still does. The negatives I can think of are slightly more recoil, lower capacity in same size gun, and higher cost per round. The first two can be offset somewhat with a bigger gun, and the last point isn't by a huge margin.
I like the round. More recoil than a 9 or a .40, but feels like more of a push than a snap like a .40.
My favorite handgun ever is a 1911. Even GI style basic 1911s are cool to me and fun to shoot. I like a smooth and short single action trigger. They have some out there that are works of art or great history pieces.
I love all guns, and say to each his own. Find what you like and train. Ammo shortages are easier when you keep ammo on hand (stack it deep!) and having a little caliber diversity gives you options. If interested, get into reloading when things aren't short, buy components frequently and keep your stores growing over time like financial investments.
9mm was the first thing to go. For a minute near me if you were restricting yourself to gun shops (IDK about a con or something) you couldn't even find many 9mm weapons and no ammo.
In 45 you could find a pistol if you were willing to pay 1200 dollars for a nice one.
Federal Judge Strikes Down Minnesota Ban on Open Carry for 18- to 20-Year Olds, Gun Grabbers Hardest Hit
As reported by Fox News, three individuals under age 21 challenged a 2003 state law that implemented an age requirement to open carry in public. Assisted by gun-rights advocacy groups, they argued that the law unconstitutionally prohibited young adults from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
In a 50-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Menendez agreed.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen — a case in which SCOTUS ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense — Menendez wrote:
Menendez’s ruling did not suggest she was happy with it, mind you, but instead suggested she had no choice due to the Bruen decision. She further wrote:
Given the relative dearth of firearms regulation from the most relevant period where that lens is aimed, the endeavor of applying Bruen seems likely to lead, generally, to more guns in the hands of more people, not just young adults.
Some Minnesotans are surely fine with that result,” the judge continued. “Others may wonder what public safety measures are left to be achieved through the political process where guns are concerned. But Bruen makes it clear that today’s policy considerations play no role in an analytical framework that begins and ends more than 200 years ago.
To Menendez’s credit, she wrote that while she had “reservations” about the historical analysis demanded by the Supreme Court, she noted that “judges are not historians.” So, look at that: a liberal judge who refused to legislate from the bench.
The Bottom Line
This was a yuuge Second Amendment win — and the gun grabbers know it. Even better, a Biden district court judge made it happen. Ain’t that something?
It seems that way. That they are more than happy to stand by and slaughter a roomful of school children day in and day out. Why are these places targeted because there's a sign that says it's a safe place gun free zone and the cowards have never faced incoming fore. they can't legislate a problem away but they can use the issues to keep themselves in power. It appears that they are very keen that their power is fading away and there might be some drastic measures taken by people who are scared about what they have done. As it comes to light more and more each day they see their friends turn on them, there's no loyalty in those eyes they surrounded themselves with.
But Bruen makes it clear that today’s policy considerations play no role in an analytical framework that begins and ends more than 200 years ago.
I don't care what any unconstitutional law says anymore to begin with. The government doesn't own the land. The government shall not infringe your right to bear arms if you're 7 or 17. I DONT CARE WHAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS SAY. My dad was a Vietnam veteran who would compete in Winchester shooting competitions when he was just 7 years old. He would take a train from Medford Oregon to Eugene Oregon with a rifle on his back BY HIMSELF and no one said shit in his time. We have strayed so far from what the constitution is it makes me sick and tired of pussies every day. Start militias. Start showing up at unconstitutional judges houses and reminding them in large groups who really owns this country and what the constitution really says. Stop letting these fucking pussies take ground because whatever they take we will never get it back.
Sure would be nice if the scotus would do it's job by upholding the second amendment and striking down all gun control as the infringements they clearly are
Hopefully DeSantis et al down in Florida are watching cases like this.
All open carry is banned in Florida, they have a waiting period for firearms, and they banned binary triggers, along with having one of those most heavily enforced red flag laws in the country.
It's time they stand up for the Second Amendment in red states, too.
The New York Times never ceases to be fun. I wish they would notice it with a new gun restriction went into effect, that women and minority owned gun dealers would be the hardest hit. Not that there are many
Right decision, wrong reasons.
Fuck "tradition" it's in the Constitution for a reason.
tradition (noun):
Standing. Moot. Laches.
Nick Lachey?
I beg to differ on it being the wrong reasons, the reasoning was solid... When forced to use history and tradition (from the founding era) as the judge, you can see that the founding fathers had for all intents no desire to infringe, thus supporting the textural meaning of the 2nd's "shall not be infringed" that they authored. Who better to show what they intended when they authored the 2nd, then using their own actions?
Be careful what you wish for, if you fuck tradition, the Constitution is no longer applicable and is moot, as it is literally the traditional foundation of this nation... Most of the world has no tradition of letting the population have a codified right to self-defense using arms, one should not be so hasty to dismiss that tradition if one cherishes exercising it...
That little parenthetical is where your point falls flat. Courts like this aren't ruling based on "tradition" solely from the founding era. These types of rulings take into account any sort of long-standing law, even if it was not from the "founding era."
Essentially what it means is that if they can sneak a law in that goes unchallenged for long enough, then future laws can use that as precedent and springboard off of it.
Reasons a particular law may go unchallenged can include the law going unenforced, leaving nobody able to actually challenge it, or the law being so narrow in scope that it doesn't actually matter except on principle, meaning nobody can challenge it.
The Constitution is clear on many issues. We don't need to rely on "tradition" where the Constitution is clear. The argument of "tradition" should only be permitted if it works in favor of the freedom of the people (i.e. it's tradition the government doesn't do something, even if they aren't explicitly forbid), but never when it works against the freedom of the people (i.e. it's tradition the government does something, even though it's clearly unconstitutional).
And they are wrong in doing so, Bruen was pretty darn clear!
The burden then falls on respondents to show that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. To do so, respondents appeal to a variety of historical sources from the late 1200s to the early 1900s. But when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635. The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates or postdates either time may not illuminate the scope of the right. With these principles in mind, the Court concludes that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper-cause requirement
The bold is clear, “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” thus if you want to know the scope of the 2nd only the 1791 period analysis is applicable...
Any court not following that is wrong, they are not following SCOTUS precedent and have gone rogue and need to be overturned...
If you "fuck" tradition, there is no Constitution as we know it... You instead get the liberal interpretation that it's a living document that they can twist and apply to modern society's needs or wants on a whim an example is the Roe ruling where they entirely created a Constitutional right out of thin air with some epic mental gymnastics...
So you agree it's permitted here, as there is basically no tradition of infringing laws on the 2nd in the era the Supreme Court has limited that tradition reviews to...
I'm heavily involved in 2nd rights, I'm even on a pending plaintiff shortlist to sue my state shortly over their ban on ghost guns. I have been reading the lawsuits across this country, there is no history and tradition from the founding era supporting nearly any gun law... Thus you see states trying to twist Bruen's wording, because they know full well if the history and tradition test is followed probably 95% of all existing gun laws and pending gun laws are unconstitutional and fail...
Quit it with this retarded take. It is incredibly pedantic. You know what I am saying. The world's not a genie where you say "fuck tradition" and he chuckles, says "ok," then destroys the constitution, too, because you didn't realize that technically it is "just tradition" to follow our founding document.
You sound like a vaccinated liberal... No matter how you spin it, if you say "fuck tradition" you can't then shift to proclaiming something that is based on tradition is the rule of law, it's 100% being a hypocrite and you know it, but you can't admit your comment was you being stupid...
You are retarded. Pay attention to the context of what is being said. Nobody here is saying we should entirely disregard the tradition of following the Constitution. Clearly I'm saying we should disregard the tradition of not following the Constitution.
You sound like the type who supports the PATRIOT act because it says patriot right there in the name!
You sound vaccinated...
We are talking about Heller/Bruen, the tradition we are talking about is limited in the ruling to era that the 2nd was authored. This tradition of the era fully supports the plain wording of the 2nd, and that court made it clear that laws past later that wer in stark contrast to era laws, even if accepted and on the books for a long time, were not part of the history and tradition of the 2nd...
Have you even read Heller/Bruen? Do you understand the ruling? Because your argument is literally the same one being used by the anti-gunners that can't read Heller/Bruen trying to claim laws made in the 1900s are part of the history and tradition of the 2nd, something Heller/Bruen says is incorrect, they are not...
The Heller/Bruen ruling literally is saying the so-called history/tradition 'loophole' using modern gun laws, which many liberals would love to use, should not be used and that history and tradition when being used to enlighten us to the meaning of the 2nd are limited to the period in which the 2nd was being authored and adopted not the twisted interpretation 100 years later, that some pretend is the history and tradition when it's not...
Regulation is not a founding principle. You are contradicting yourself.
The Constitution is not the tradition of regulation. Again, you are putting forward a lot of words, but not actually saying anything.
Did you happen to see the part of the article I was quoting?
That would help clear up your confusion...
I understand you jumped into the conversation - obviously without reading it.
It's pretty easy for you to rectify your confusion. You seem to have chosen not to.
That's on you, duder.
There were some regulations at the time of the 2nd amendment, e.g., people had to drill once a week in the village square, their primary gun had to be in good working order.
I'd support that. Be good for the nation.
Can't they? I mean that sounds an awful lot like being pressed into the army, which can happen. If this is some other organization, maybe they can't.
Yea.. dueling was also legal. It's not hard to understand that they meant the citizens can have guns and use them how they see fit. It is not for the government to decide.
Those are not regulations.
You're confusing a well regulated militia with the regulation of owning a weapon. The two concepts are vastly different.
"Don't rock the boat" isn't a legal principle but here we are.
Yeah the historic tradition is “None”
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The judge in question is the only one at that level who was a public defender.
Stare decisis can go fuck itself.
Holy fucking strawman.
I guess Scalia was just a retard, then.
I'm really quite amazed that you continue to claim that the reasoning doesn't matter as long as it's "a win" for gun rights.
The text of the decision matters more than the text of the Constitution, according to you.
Just read totos comment history bro he's obviously here to spread division and hate between patriots who he doesn't agree with and masturbate his ego.
I've dealt with this little totovader faggot before.
Seriously, read the little fucker's comment history. It speaks for itself.
Soros isn't sending his best.
You have.
And you lost.
Coward.
Cry moar doomer faggot.
Try something moar original wannabe neckbeard 💁 you already tried that one like 4x
You only have one thing to say to me and so you choose that thing to be an empty and meaningless bromide.
Cool story, duder. Maybe read a book.
Calm the fuck down, kid. Your point would have a far bigger impact if you weren't so damn triggered
Ok Karen.
Lol so you have anger issues and make no sense whatsoever. You must have a lot of friends
I'm sorry my manager is not currently available, Karen.
Feel free to leave a message.
Obligatory: shall not be infringed
can minors open carry?
A long gun
how many suppressors would it take to make a pistol long enough for a minor to open carry?
None of the government's business
Not sure what the laws are in MN, but in WI, it is legal for 16-17 year olds to open carry a shotgun or long-barreled rifle. Pistols and short-barreled would be illegal to open carry.
someone was wondering if they could open carry a Mossberg 590 Shockwave, but then deleted their question...
Is it just me... Or is the dude having his holster backwards bugging anyone else? How is he goons draw that thing? Put his right hand up waving a finger saying "hold on a sec!" while cross drawing with his left arm?
That's not gonna end well for him. Cool tattoo though.
Cross drawing has advantages if you’re in the seated position in a car or riding a horse but just walking around it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Sure, may be a part of it. I think also "out of sight, out of mind" for most normies. I'd rather conceal than open carry in most circumstances to keep the tactical advantage of surprise.
They have concealable 45acp options that are great. Most recommend 9mm these days. 9mm can reportedly blow a man's lungs right out of his chest, and you get more lead PEZ to share with every reload. Truth is, with good ammo, 9mm works and extra shots mean more when shtf.
Love me some 1911, but for a carry gun I want light and corrosion resistant.
S&W shield is pretty thin, but comfortable. Can carry a compact m&p if you want double stack.
Glock 19 is a bit bigger, but with a good holster and appropriate clothing is quite concealable. They have smaller ones too if you're a Glock guy.
All of the big manufacturers have good 9mm carry guns.
There is really no advantage to open carry over concealed carry.
Open carry doesn't just draw the attention of couch fainters, it makes you a target if someone does start shooting. Conceal carries the element of surprise, pun unintended. Conceal carrying doesn't make your firearm any less accessible. But open carry does make your gun more accessible to being unholstered by someone other than you.
Open carry really only works well in like company where everyone's open carrying and you can make a collective statement: i.e. "We're armed." Suitable for certain venues.
When I'm carrying my conceal, if I really care to make it obvious I just don't put it in its pocket sheathe so I print harder than a ballot machine at 3am.
Didn't most of the cops make the opposite of that decision and go to 10mm or something?
I'd be surprised if many if those limp wristed faggots could handle a 10mm.. sorry I heard was that the FBI needed the .40S&W (shortened 10mm) because 10mm was too strong for them.
Not sure how many would consider a 10mm concealable (outside of winter carry) either.
Ammo has come a long way. Revolvers sucked because they were largely limited to 6 shots and most cops can't reload like Jerry Miculek. 38 special wasn't that great either.
Shot placement matters more then bullet size. A shot between the eyes with a 380ACP will kill a man faster than a 50AE to the foot. More bullets and less recoil tends to be a winning combo.
In the end, any gun you carry is better than the one you have at home.. find one that you can comfortable and accurately shoot, then practice. Be safe.
I actually didn't have a pistol, and I bought a .45 during ammo shortage time because that's the ammo that I could find some of.
I have to listen to people because I am clearly not the gun expert. Thanks.
Nothing wrong with a 45. Around here that's a favorite number.
I hear younger people sometimes call it .45AARP, but I think that's dumb. It has done it's job reliably since inception and still does. The negatives I can think of are slightly more recoil, lower capacity in same size gun, and higher cost per round. The first two can be offset somewhat with a bigger gun, and the last point isn't by a huge margin.
I like the round. More recoil than a 9 or a .40, but feels like more of a push than a snap like a .40.
My favorite handgun ever is a 1911. Even GI style basic 1911s are cool to me and fun to shoot. I like a smooth and short single action trigger. They have some out there that are works of art or great history pieces.
I love all guns, and say to each his own. Find what you like and train. Ammo shortages are easier when you keep ammo on hand (stack it deep!) and having a little caliber diversity gives you options. If interested, get into reloading when things aren't short, buy components frequently and keep your stores growing over time like financial investments.
9mm was the first thing to go. For a minute near me if you were restricting yourself to gun shops (IDK about a con or something) you couldn't even find many 9mm weapons and no ammo.
In 45 you could find a pistol if you were willing to pay 1200 dollars for a nice one.
Totally valid reason to get one. Of course, I hardly need an excuse to get any gun.. I think they're all great.
Federal Judge Strikes Down Minnesota Ban on Open Carry for 18- to 20-Year Olds, Gun Grabbers Hardest Hit
As reported by Fox News, three individuals under age 21 challenged a 2003 state law that implemented an age requirement to open carry in public. Assisted by gun-rights advocacy groups, they argued that the law unconstitutionally prohibited young adults from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
In a 50-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Menendez agreed.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen — a case in which SCOTUS ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense — Menendez wrote:
Menendez’s ruling did not suggest she was happy with it, mind you, but instead suggested she had no choice due to the Bruen decision. She further wrote:
Given the relative dearth of firearms regulation from the most relevant period where that lens is aimed, the endeavor of applying Bruen seems likely to lead, generally, to more guns in the hands of more people, not just young adults.
Some Minnesotans are surely fine with that result,” the judge continued. “Others may wonder what public safety measures are left to be achieved through the political process where guns are concerned. But Bruen makes it clear that today’s policy considerations play no role in an analytical framework that begins and ends more than 200 years ago.
To Menendez’s credit, she wrote that while she had “reservations” about the historical analysis demanded by the Supreme Court, she noted that “judges are not historians.” So, look at that: a liberal judge who refused to legislate from the bench.
The Bottom Line
This was a yuuge Second Amendment win — and the gun grabbers know it. Even better, a Biden district court judge made it happen. Ain’t that something?
https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2023/04/01/federal-judge-strikes-down-minnesota-ban-on-open-carry-for-18-to-20-year-olds-gun-grabbers-hardest-hit-n724861
Federal Judge Strikes Down Minnesota Ban on Open Carry for 18- to 20-Year Olds, Gun Grabbers Hardest Hit
https://patriots.win/p/16amdMu3QR/federal-judge-strikes-down-minne/c/
It seems that way. That they are more than happy to stand by and slaughter a roomful of school children day in and day out. Why are these places targeted because there's a sign that says it's a safe place gun free zone and the cowards have never faced incoming fore. they can't legislate a problem away but they can use the issues to keep themselves in power. It appears that they are very keen that their power is fading away and there might be some drastic measures taken by people who are scared about what they have done. As it comes to light more and more each day they see their friends turn on them, there's no loyalty in those eyes they surrounded themselves with.
I don't care what any unconstitutional law says anymore to begin with. The government doesn't own the land. The government shall not infringe your right to bear arms if you're 7 or 17. I DONT CARE WHAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS SAY. My dad was a Vietnam veteran who would compete in Winchester shooting competitions when he was just 7 years old. He would take a train from Medford Oregon to Eugene Oregon with a rifle on his back BY HIMSELF and no one said shit in his time. We have strayed so far from what the constitution is it makes me sick and tired of pussies every day. Start militias. Start showing up at unconstitutional judges houses and reminding them in large groups who really owns this country and what the constitution really says. Stop letting these fucking pussies take ground because whatever they take we will never get it back.
What in the fuck is that thumbnail 😂 a kilt and a six shooter?
Sure would be nice if the scotus would do it's job by upholding the second amendment and striking down all gun control as the infringements they clearly are
Hopefully DeSantis et al down in Florida are watching cases like this.
All open carry is banned in Florida, they have a waiting period for firearms, and they banned binary triggers, along with having one of those most heavily enforced red flag laws in the country.
It's time they stand up for the Second Amendment in red states, too.
Legal with a boat.
This doesn't affect street riggers, so they are good to go.
13/51 is a lie and you know it. . . .
As I have pointed out many times.
Half of the 13 are male, males being responsible for 95%.
6.5/51. Except half of those are too old or too young to be involved.
Literally 3/51 is about right and you know it.
why do these even end up in court we have a right period
I should have been a gun lawyer.
You should actually not need a permit to carry open at all.
The New York Times never ceases to be fun. I wish they would notice it with a new gun restriction went into effect, that women and minority owned gun dealers would be the hardest hit. Not that there are many
Going for it in GA too.
What's up w/ the graphic? A guy in a kilt with a 10ft long arm to cross-draw around his whole body?
Shall not be infringed is the only reason necessary.