DOJ files brief to end state-level gun bans

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
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.
 
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. :ROFLMAO:

Is it the TLR-8XG?

Did you bother to read the previous replies?


I did read the replies and the OP
The link in the OP talks of a brief filed July 19, 2025. I could find no such brief
 
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.
True statement.
The next Dem or squishy Rebumblican President can undo all of Trumps Executive orders within 15 minutes of being sworn in.
I am praying the Rebumblicans pick up enough House and Senate seats in the mid-terms to make it possible for Trump’s EO’s to be enacted into statute law.
But that may be A Bridge Too Far.
 
Back
Top