The federal lawsuit is the first on pistol stabilizing devices to be decided. The case, Mock v. Garland, was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) in the Northern District of Texas. FPC asked the Judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the new rule. The Judge denied the pleas of the plaintiffs.
*****
Key words: a George W. Bush appointee
Another judge who does not know how to read the plane language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteWhy did ATF Approve them?
ReplyDeleteThen….
Why did ATF then Rescind that?
Why does ATF DO THAT?
Why are they AlLOWED To do that?
Dubya was and still is a Deep State major-league asshole.
ReplyDeleteThe question comes to mind, when will the House Republicans get angry enough to actually stand up and be counted, to where their actions really mean something other than a sound bite? I see all of their gotcha moments on YouTube, where they seem to be grilling some outclassed witness for the left, like a low level clown from the ATF or the Dept. of Public Health or Safety, and make them look like an idiot when asked a question about which they have no clue. But the seldom show when they ask questions about things that the principal actually has knowledge and would be able to discuss things with knowledge
ReplyDeleteand authority.
I am pissed about the whole firearms BS going on with the Democrats and have been for quite some time. This includes the phony things like demonizing the AR 15 et al, as being assault rifles that are somehow more dangerous than a bolt action rifle in .308 Winchester, which has more velocity at 100 yards than the AR 15, plus the advantage of a much heavier bullet, which transfers to a lot more foot pounds of kinetic energy meaning a lot more potential for deadly results, should it hit a living target. The whole thing about an assault gun not being useful except for killing is first of all BS, and secondly immaterial, since a lot of people own an AR15 or an AK 47 or some form of those guns for self defense only, while others use their similar guns for plinking, competition, pest control, hog hunting and many other uses, that in reality are none of the anti gun peoples business.
We have always had to fight for our gun rights, but in recent years, it seems that the gun haters have come out of the woodwork, and are making an ever more determined push, like they know something that we don't. We would do well to pay very close attention, because they won't stop.
> “Nor does the Second Amendment bar the imposition of traditional registration and licensing requirements commonly associated with firearm ownership,” Judge O’Connor wrote.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution does not explicitly give the Federal government jurisdiction over firearms. Actually, it states the exact opposite and quite explicitly. Therefore, the Federal government cannot, and never has been able to, legally enact firearms laws. Per the Constitution, that is the jurisdiction of the States.
"Shall not be infringed"
ReplyDeleteA simple statement that Judges and law makers refuse to comprehend.
As an individual, a prohibition of pistol braces does not infringe upon me.
ReplyDeleteAs a citizen, any such prohibition unequivocally does infringe upon me.
Somewhere in the annals of U.S. Supreme Court decisons, there is the finding that an infringement upon one citizen is an infringement upon all citizens.
IANAL but I believe therefore all citizens of a certain age have legal standing for cause.
Since the 'ruling' mentions stabilizing devices, would resting a pistol upon a backpack, or sandbag, or the like be also prohibited? That's how absurd this decision is.
Not the least, it goes against the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
Abolish the ATF.
Throttle back people; this was just for the preliminary injunction. Here's an explanation of the ruling. FPC played the wrong game, and the judge gave some very strong hints about what they should bring to the actual trial:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDwR3UB22vk