I know, it seems simple and self-explanatory, yet the left twists it, restricts it, and tries their best to eliminate it.About time!!!
What part of the 2A don't people understand?
I know, it seems simple and self-explanatory, yet the left twists it, restricts it, and tries their best to eliminate it.About time!!!
What part of the 2A don't people understand?
Firearm restrictions and requirements do not align with the constitution. "Shall not be infringed" applies to the states just as the rest of the bill of rights applies to the states. States can't pick and choose which 1st amendment rights they want to allow. Or which 5th amendment rights they want to allow, etc.And, with the 2nd being an individual right with the aim of ensuring states have well-armed militias in times of need, it only makes sense that under that framework, states can put certain requirements in place regarding arms where that aligns with the constitution
Did you bother to read the previous replies?Anyone able to please post a link to the brief discussed in the OP
I'm 73 yo and am pleased that this tax provision for the so called "no tax" on SS benefits passed and will help so many retired folks. The feds should have never taxed SS benefits. But, as always in these cases of tax reduction changes, they benefit some and the rest of us in higher tax brackets can forget any benefit to begin with! I worked my behind off, had a great income, saved and invested wisely and am blessed to be living comfortably. However, I will continue to be taxed on my SS benefits since I am in a much higher bracket and will continue to pay beaucoup taxes every year...as always.![]()
Is it the TLR-8XG?
Did you bother to read the previous replies?
DOJ Amicus Brief here on carry in places open to public without express permission
I started a new thread about this ^^^ case at the Supreme Court
I would not bet any money on it either.What? Actually enforce the 2A in states that ignore the U.S. constitution? What a concept! I sure hope it works, but I won't bet money on it.
True statement.I think both mreed911 and Rodan have excellent points.
States are empowered to define their laws and regulations, within the boundaries of their Constitution and the federal Constitution; insofar as those don’t contradict federal law. Likewise, the supremacy clause asserts that federal law overrides state law; this is why places like NY or NJ need to get wrecked over FOPA violations.
Mreed911 is entirely correct in that this will establish precedent for states to be overridden if the federal government doesn’t “like” their stances. Taxes, guns, abortion…it’s all on the table, in both directions. Victory for the 2A would need to be very narrowly defined as a 2A-only victory to be anything other than Phyrric.
I think this is overall a good thing for the 2A community in that its enforcement and empowerment should be universal, but the unwritten side is that we do not want our rights supported by executive orders or judicial opinions; we need them secured by an overarching federal law that cannot be creatively reinterpreted or executively mis-exercised. That’s the great weakness of the Trump era…practically all of his “wins” are tissue-thin executive orders that do nothing to persist beyond his administration and open plenty of doors to swing both ways in terms of what an executive is allowed to do.