05-04-2023, 03:20 AM
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Smote]
Violate the Constitution and try and ban handguns? The 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right to own firearms for common defense, and personal defense.
No, the Second Amendment itself does NOT say that!
“II. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Further…
“Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power...”
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the “Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
“Article 2, Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
Smote wrote: Banning handguns would violate the Constitution. It has already been tried and ruled on.
- The Roe v. Wade decision was the law… until it wasn’t.
- The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was the law… until it wasn’t.
District of Columbia v. Heller could ALSO be overturned!
Right now, today's reality, is it was decided by the highest authority court in the United States, that ithe 2nd A also includes an individual right, and encompasses self defense.
Right now, today, that is our reality. Until it changes, its what we must abide by, or pay the consequences of Civil Rights violations. Our politicians refuse to accept this, and are breaking the law. But since they voted themselves qualified immunity long ago, they can't really be punished like you and I can. The Illinois ban was passed AFTER Bruen, as was Washington's. And Washington's magazine capacity limit was passed before, but not enacted until after. They could have pulled it back, in light of the Bruen decision, but that wouldn't look good, the governor and AG admitting defeat. So the taxpayers get to pay for their defeat in court.
California is also ignoring that their ban was kicked back to the district court, where it was already declared unconstitutional by Judge Benitez, and California won't accept that it is a done deal. It's unconstitutional.
And there is another lawsuit in California because of their "roster" your pistol must be on. It is beyond assinine. I "think" there is already an injunction on that one too, courtesy of Judge Benitez possibly.
Oregon has at least one lawsuit, and one more as of last Friday.