Search results

It's not unconstitutional, they're following the letter of the law by funding the army for the next two years and then appropriating more funds after that two year term. It's certainly bending the spirt of the rules, but adhering to the letter of the law, and since it's illegal to use the army...

Article 1, section 8, Clause 12 explicitly states that Congress has the power to raise an army.

He isn't saying that people support banning them, he's saying people support them being NFA items, requiring registration, extra paperwork, etc. The unacceptable bit is that the registry for new ones is closed, not that it exists in the first place.

It's fine, no offense taken.

Eh....technically yes, but that's a different issue. This is about the courts ruling yes or no on you getting your weapons back after they're seized, not about getting rid of the law itself. And the court doesn't care if you get your weapons back or don't. Courts don't get funding from civil...

Er.....not really? There's no conflict of interest in reversing a red flag order, the court gains nothing by seizing firearms and loses nothing by returning them.

If the cops show up with a court order demanding you turn over your firearms and you try to turn it into a scavenger hunt, they will throw you in jail for refusing to follow a valid court order. That is not at all what the 5th amendment says. Pleading the 5th invokes your right to not testify...

I don't think either of those rights would apply to that circumstance. They mean the firearm owner had a right to go to a judge and argue to have his gun returned, but you can't invoke that to counter a court order saying thry should be seized. It'd be like arguing that the police can't execute...

Not really. Like, yeah there's a bunch of pissing and moaning right now, but I suspect it's mostly just performative. "May Issue" carry licensing is a grossly unacceptable infringement of constitutional rights, but as grossly unacceptable infringements for I don't think it's as beloved as the...

Alito's concurrence is great, not because of it's actual legal merits (Thomas more than handled that), but because it's devoted almost entirely to yelling at Breyer for dragging in unrelated cral and trying to reargue Heller. Breyer started his dissent by citing a bunch of crime statistics...

Correction: A House Representative is willing to bluster about what the dems are willing to do, while in the senate, the body that actually could nuke the filibuster, the idea is dead in the water and in a few more months, entirely off the table once the dems lose the senate.

For context, the original question: As Ribs noted, at the time the amendment was written civilians could own the same weapons as soldiers, which all covered under the umbrella of "arms". However, even if the second amendment was supposed to be interpreted liberally and defend not merely...

After Americans for Prosperity vs Bonta, you'd think California would have learned its lesson about how it handles PII. I guess not.

Wow.