Judge Napolitano on today's Historic Supreme Court Ruling, affirming the 2nd amendment.

and he's a leftard

One excellent comment on the video says...

""Using the same means as the government does." Does that mean the National Firearms Act of 1934 is repealed? ..."

Freedom bump!

bump stock

DC is technically a principality.

Damn good question..

[link to www.atf.gov (secure)]

rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act

Might as well close down the ATF at this point. Nothing for them to enforce. And we already have laws against shooting people. The police enforce that one.

Did you see the SC Decision against th ATF last week?\

You should google it, They are finished.

Why is he ok with the states even issuing permits?
That shit has to go, because they send mobs to the homes of firearms owners.

Fuck off with your traitorous homosexual Judge Nappy, OP.

That's three of them that you have spammed here this week.

Hallelujah!

Thread: Judge Napolitano: Evidence of Trump's High Crimes & Misdemeanors is "ample and uncontradicted"

That evidence consists of administration officials' emails that were obtained by the media pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Those emails demonstrate conclusively that Trump ordered a halt on the release of the $391 million within minutes of his favor request, and the aid sat undistributed until congressional pressure became too much for Trump to bear.

This implicates two other crimes. One is bribery -- the refusal to perform a government obligation until a thing of value is delivered, whether the thing of value -- here, the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens -- arrives or not. The other is contempt of Congress.


I'm with Judge Napolitano...

LOCK TRUMP UP!

Trump took your welfare money away that's why all u fucks don't like him

He’s just soiling his diaper because he gets railed in the a-hole daily and he’s angry that Trump didn’t nominate him to the Supreme Court as if that were ever a possibility.

And that is the asshole that OP is promoting as a source here?

FFS

Damn, Nappy is starting to look like he is taking hormones in preparation for sex reassignment surgery.

lol

"(c) The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens withordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep andbear arms in public. "

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

Do you need a permit to speak your mind in public? No?
Then you don't need a gun permit either.

"In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

I interpret that as meaning that all firearm regulations are null and void until retested against this test.

I'm not an atty. , but that is my read on this.

Last Edited by JustmeTX on 06/23/2022 10:36 PM

Simple, you have a right to protect yourself whether at home or out in public.

Criminals have firearms, you need a firearm on you to protect you from them.

Amen

IT has the strong potential to gut some provisions of the National Firearms act.

Yep.

Tanks, cannon, full auto, etc.