Pages

Wednesday, March 03, 2021

Scalia's Critical Error As The 2nd Amendment Literally Requires Military Weapons Ownership by Citizens

“We conclude … that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment,” Bill Clinton nominee and 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert King wrote in the opinion to Kolbe v. Hogan, a challenge to the State of Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban. “That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ ‘M-16 rifles’—'weapons that are most useful in military service’—which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment's reach.

18 comments:

  1. Ken, seriously.
    Put the bong down before you make up titles.
    Greenwood will agree, never happen here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you'd have bothered to click the link, you'd have seen that the title is the one that came with the article word for word, not one I 'made up'.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, sure, right.

      Next, I suppose you are going to claim the 'My Life' in the title of your hallowed blog means you have some semblance of life outside continually furnishing free/valuable/timely information to cheapskates like me... so each day, I can increase the temperature of my 'combat simmer'.

      Well, on second thought... keep up the good work.
      .
      .
      PS:
      Where do I send a donation in lieu of a subscription?

      Delete
    3. Believe it or not, I do have a life. Why, just a couple hours ago I was cleaning a chicken coop and shoveling dogshit.

      My mailing address is in the sidebar, up near the top, but I'll save you a step because I'm cool about that shit:
      Ken Lane
      PO Box 712
      Lafayette TN 37083

      Delete
    4. Ken, you still taking PayPal too, correct?

      MadMarlin

      Delete
    5. You bet. Button's in the sidebar.

      Delete
  2. A telling remark is Coxe’s belief that the Whiskey Rebellion was “not grounds for a Second Amendment revolution.” There are, then, grounds for militia actions against measures by the federal government. Gun grabbers cannot comprehend the Second Amendment’s cause for existence, that the people have the right and the responsibility to maintain freedom through actions against government as much as they have the same right and responsibility to defy a foreign invader.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's nothing in the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights that states politicians or judges of any kind have the constitutional jurisdiction of legal authorization to hear, legislate nor create laws concerning the regulation,possession, registration nor transfer of firearms. A judge's, of every court, opinion is worth squat so let's stop letting them control our rights.
    A judge is nothing but a lawyer in a black bath robe and 80 - 90% of lawyers are bottom feeding shit eaters. Fuck Em
    JD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is correct. Outside the constitution the rest is left to the states not statist.

      Delete
  4. Shall not be infringed is so straightforward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary:

      The 2A wording is clear -- military weapons are REQUIRED by be owned by Americans... as in "...necessary to a free state...".

      The federal Constitution requires you to own and train with military weapons.
      The wording is simple, clear, and unmistakable.
      Your ownership of military weapons is "...necessary...".

      Delete
  5. The author may disparage Scalia's decision, but we will all be missing him when the Roberts court allows knee-pads Harris to dismantle the 2A.

    Jackdaddy63

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Roberts court will formalize it. The populace will be the ones who allow it.

      Delete
  6. Hmmm... I click on the link, and it comes back as "403 forbidden." Looks like I have had a bit too much to think.

    ReplyDelete
  7. YOUR CONCLUSION DOES NOT MEAN SHIT TO ME OTHER THAN YOU ARE A RETARDED ASSHOLE. SHALL NOT HAS NOT EMANATIONS OR PENDUMBRA. FOAD (1st A). 2 A has no carve out for faux “assault rifles.” HEY HEY HEY Dumbshit asshole tool: All rifles can be used as assault rifles.

    High capacity? Must be something you lack, do not understand and hurts your fweelings ideology and stupidity. Suck shit thru a tube backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  8. YOUR CONCLUSION DOES NOT MEAN SHIT TO ME OTHER THAN YOU ARE A RETARDED ASSHOLE. SHALL NOT HAS NOT EMANATIONS OR PENDUMBRA. FOAD (1st A). 2 A has no carve out for faux “assault rifles.” HEY HEY HEY Dumbshit asshole tool: All rifles can be used as assault rifles.

    High capacity? Must be something you lack, do not understand and hurts your fweelings ideology and stupidity. Suck shit thru a tube backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  9. All laws that are unconstitutional are null and void. Restricting ones rights to firearms goes against the 2nd, ergo null and void.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So I read the US V Miller decision correctly then. It states any gun used by the militia (NOT the National Guard) cannot be banned. Theoretically that could nullify ALL of the NFA Because Everything listed is in Common use by the military at this time.

    ReplyDelete

I moderate my comments due to spam and trolls. No need to post the same comment multiple times if yours doesn't show right away..