Gun Rights in America
from The Blaze
In a case that could have national implications, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce this week whether it will take on a challenge to a Chicago-area law banning semi-automatic rifles.
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C., also currently ban so-called “assault weapons.”
More from NBC News:
"Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
The ban also lists certain specific rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms."
The Illinois State Rifle Association is challenging the law as the group believes it to be unconstitutional.
A federal district judge and a federal appeals court panel upheld the law.
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote in his decision that “a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs.”
Editors Note:
I just have ONE question for these radicals who wish to restrict law abiding people, because of law breakers.
"What do think would have happened at Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting scene, if EVERY law abiding human in the room would have been REQUIRED to be armed with at least one loaded weapon each?"
(with as many rounds as they wanted)
"The best defense against a bad guy with a gun. is a good guy with a gun." - NRA
Replies
from what im learning Sandy hook was a staged event.
FACT: Gun Deaths are DOWN. Way Down, Actually…
http://www.blacklistednews.com/FACT%3A_Gun_Deaths_are_DOWN._Way_Dow...
I heard this are there any links to it? mr Donahue?
what's been happening here today, is taken right out of Hitler's playbook: in small, increments
boiling frog theory
I have said it over and over start challenging their Oath of Office when it comes to infringing on any of the Bill of Rights. This is a sample letter I will write on the 2nd Amendment:
I hope that you will OPPOSE all gun control. Do not vote for one word of gun control.
I hope you will not commit a GROSS VIOLATION on your Oath of Office by supporting more 2nd Amendment INFRINGEMENT violations. It is beyond me that a unconstitutional law was passed and signed in law during Clinton in 1996, called GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE that passed, violating Constitution restriction: The Constitution prohibits both the federal government (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3) and the states (in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The Framers considered freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws so important that these are the only two individual liberties that the original Constitution protects from both federal and state intrusion. As James Madison said in The Federalist No. 44, "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation."
Any government official that takes the required Oath under Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution and Title 5 US CODE 3331 and infringes on the Bill of Rights should be charged under E.O. 10450, then removed from office and never be able to hold any government position in the United States of America.