Article: Palmetto State Armory has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs challenging ATF's bump stock ban (Cargill v. Garland). Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for next month.
We here at Palmetto State Armory and affiliates are determined to stop any and all over-reach by the ATF. We thank you for your business as a portion of every purchase goes to funding cases like this. We look forward to this victory and many more.
To learn more about the Amicus Brief go to:
Article: LEGAL ALERT: A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against an Upstate New York public housing authority that banned its tenants from keeping handguns in their homes: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.141417/gov.uscourts.nynd.141417.28.0.pdf
Article: The judge says he "has trouble accepting" the housing authority's argument that public housing didn't exist at the founding:
Article: "For the sake of brevity, the Court will not linger on the lack of relevant similarity between limiting a right of criminal convicts and limiting a right of law-abiding, responsible citizens."
Article: "Defendants base their justification for their Firearms Ban on half of a historical analogy (to a non-firearms regulation, no less), which actually seems to undermine their case."
Article: "Even if the Court were persuaded by this assertion, the Supreme Court in Heller specifically rejected it as a ground for finding such a firearms regulation constitutional"
Article: The judge was not amused by the housing authority's argument that it can ban tenants from owning handguns because they can buy crossbows instead:
Article: LEGAL ALERT: A federal judge has struck down California's ammunition background check requirement, saying it violates the Second Amendment: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.105.0.pdf
Article: "Though they are citizens entitled to enjoy all of the constitutional rights, Californians are denied the Second Amendment right to buy ammunition for self-defense at least 11% of the time because of problems with the background check system."
Article: "The first argument employs a rhetorical device to over- describe in detail the asserted constitutional wrong. Having over-described the alleged constitutional right, it is then argued that the detailed description of the asserted right is not covered by the plain text of the Constitution."
Article: "Because ammunition sale prohibitions and regulations are covered by the Second Amendment, the presumption is that such restrictions are infringements."
Article: "To sum up, approximately 635,000 residents were required to undergo background checks in the last half of 2019, the denials of which prompted the arrests of 15 individuals which led to six criminal convictions."
Article: "If a state identification requirement for voting which burdens 4.5% of registered voters is an unconstitutional burden on the Fifteenth Amendment, surely a state identification requirement that blocks an untold number of gun owners from undergoing an ammunition background check and then rejects 11% of those who are checked, is likewise an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment."
Article: "If any background check system satisfies Bruen’s footnote nine description of a scheme put to abusive ends, as opposed to the system originally approved by the voters, this may be it."
And then you basically have a nation with no power in the world who will become food for those that will leverage this to either start wars, or surround the based side and leave them alone to fight them.
. . . What I mean is that Gun Control politically and legally was at its apex of power and influence in the 1990s. In that period the courts and legal schools were dominated by the "collective right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the idea that the 2nd was an Individual Right was practically laughed out of the academy (no, seriously, I have Intro Constitutional Law textbooks written the year before DC vs Heller and it barely gives a few paragraphs to the Individual Right interpretation...), and the Democrats succeeded in passing a Federal Assault Weapon Ban and the Gun Control advocates in Congress were starting to even go mask off about wanting to ban all firearms banned and outright admitted to salami slicing tactics...
. . . That you think this is laughable. Splitting the US in two would create two countries that are occupy the number 1 and 2 slots of world economic and military power over Russia and China. Given the likely makeup of the "Based" US (being mainly Appalachia, the Midwest and South plus potentially Alaska) that is a lot of agricultural, resource, and technology base to "isolate" from the world (and they wouldn't want to, they'd want to trade with it), with a large population and enough resources they could be self sufficient, as well as plenty of ports to build a navy out of. The other successor states would also have considerable economic power to leverage.
And...how would you keep the military together in such a way? A split like this would be a split along state lines, and would destroy any semblance of a combined military force, and would require some states in one country to rely upon states in others.
I mean... My home state has an awful lot of them. The question is if we'd be able to establish and keep local control of them.
That is a other thing.
I'd be fine with that. Like greater Idaho would be a good example.
But then you would not get all the benefits needed to survive. Military bases are often in blue cities.
Well, yeah, we'd lose some military bases. We'd keep some military bases. Obviously we'd lose stuff, but we'd also lose the commies, which is the greatest win possible.
