ALERT! Second Amendment Under Threat After New Third Circuit Decision

Biden cannot be allowed to steal this election and Ga is a must win for conservatives!

There will be a lot of lost guns I think if it gets to that point.

Shall not be infringed

Nope. Courts have ZERO Authority over the Constitution.
It it the People who Judge the Law. The fopunding Fathers made the courtthe absolute weakest branch of Giovernment just to prevent such horseshit. The POWER rests in the Hands of the People.
Any Judge trying to Overthrow the Constitution or the Right and Authority of the People is Guilty of TREASON and is a Direct THREAT to The United States of America.

Nope. Courts have ZERO Authority over the Constitution.
It it the People who Judge the Law. The fopunding Fathers made the courtthe absolute weakest branch of Giovernment just to prevent such horseshit. The POWER rests in the Hands of the People.
Any Judge trying to Overthrow the Constitution or the Right and Authority of the People is Guilty of TREASON and is a Direct THREAT to The United States of America.

Shall not be infringed

Shall not be infringed

In Massachusetts you can be denied a gun license if the licensing officer doesn't like the took of you, no criminal record needed.

So it's not like this is anything new. I suppose a court ruling in this case holds more weight than the Massachusetts law which as far as I know hasn't been challenged in court yet.

It doesn't make any difference what the fake supreme court does. Due to the dollar collapse and U.S. societal collapse They will inevitably decide that your 2nd amendment isn't worth the paper it is written on.That is a foregone conclusion. Your wonderful new SC justice will Judas you in a heartbeat.

Are you and your neighbors and your town a bunch of frightened punks or not is pretty much the endgame. You'll either give them or you won't. You'll either hide them and attempt to use the stupid worn out excuse about the boat to push it off another day or you'll be a man.

I think most people are way too old and way too comfortable and way too full of hot air to resist. At this point that stupid phone means more to people than their guns.

Biden cannot be allowed to steal this election and Ga is a must win for conservatives!

Shall not be infringed

Shall not be infringed

She was convicted of a felony. Felons can’t own guns. Not saying I agree with it in nonviolent cases but that’s a whole other fight that should have been fought over the last 4 years. We have bigger immediate problems.

100% we need to make people scared at even the thought of stepping on our freedoms -

[link to www.zerohedge.com (secure)]


The Third Circuit has issued an opinion that has received little attention over the right to bear arms, but it should. The decision in Folajtar v. The Attorney General of the United States may be one of the most perfectly tailored case for major Supreme Court decision. Indeed, the only thing lacking from the 2-1 decision is a mailing label directly to Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

In ruling that a non-violent tax conviction can result in the denial of gun ownership, the panel presents a clean case to further define the contours of the individual rights recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

The Third Circuit case concerns Lisa Folajtar who was denied the right to own a firearm. The reason was her pleading guilty in 2011 to willfully making a materially false statement on her tax returns. The plea led to a sentence of three-years’ probation, including three months of home confinement, a $10,000 fine, and a $100 assessment. She also paid the IRS over $250,000 in back taxes, penalties, and interest.

The case falls into the still grey area around the individual right articulated in 2008. The Supreme Court recognized that this is not an “unlimited” right under the Constitution while affirming the right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Id. at 635. Moreover, the Court ruled two years later that Heller “did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.’” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 (2010) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–27).