Indeed. It is complete BS to selectively apply past precedent from when 21 was the age of legal majority to argue that young adults in the 18-21 age don't really have Constitutional rights as adults.
I'll trust a random 18yr old before I'll trust a congress critter. The 18yr old is much more likely to show up and do what they've promised to do.If they are untrustworthy to keep and bear arms under the age of 21, the same applies to military service and voting.
10% is more than .01% true.I'll trust a random 18yr old before I'll trust a congress critter. The 18yr old is much more likely to show up and do what they've promised to do.
Minors were commonly allowed to use firearms, but weren't allowed to *own* them because at that point in time, a minor was quite unambiguously not a legal person in the first place and thus self-evidently had no ability to possess *anything* in the eyes of the law.Age restrictions on tht 2nd fail the common use of firearms history test. In the 18th century saying a 14 year old couldn't bear arms they would have laughed and laughed and laughed and then asked what temperature you'd like the tar at and if you had any bird allergies.
Barring barrister barratry then, you'd at that point have to dig back to common law to find an answer id guess unless theres somethibg funky in the 18th or 19th century on that. Specifically, which part of which laws take precedence? Laws of ownership, or laws about the age of majority? Is the invention of splitting the age of majority a purely 20th century convention? In this case, I mean the accession of certain natural rights at differing ages vs a all or nothing accession to majority.Minors were commonly allowed to use firearms, but weren't allowed to *own* them because at that point in time, a minor was quite unambiguously not a legal person in the first place and thus self-evidently had no ability to possess *anything* in the eyes of the law.
Article: FPC WIN: The Fifth Circuit has ruled that we are likely to win on the merits of our APA claim against the ATF's pistol brace rule, and has remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reconsider our motion for preliminary injunction: https://firearmspolicy.org/mock
Article: Judge Willett concurs, saying that the pistol brace rule likely also violates the Second Amendment. Stay tuned for more info!
Article: heh
Article: "Plaintiffs observe that ATF Director Steve Dettelbach provided inaccurate testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on the operation of this portion of the Final Rule..."
Article: "If the government is correct, and the rule is only interpretive, millions of Americans were committing a felony the entire time they owned a braced pistol."
Article: "The ATF’s main rebuttal is that 'were an individual to be charged with unlawful possession, a court would determine whether the statute—not the Rule—covered the conduct.' That is too clever by half."
Article: "Under the Final Rule, it is nigh impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol..."
Article: They have to remand. The appeal was interlocutory. Now we can work quickly. But don’t be surprised if they ask SCOTUS for relief like they did in our frame or receiver case.
This is an interesting case that may have a secondary and tertiary blast radius for the federal government, and the unconstitutional use of Federal Administrative Agencies. (FAA)
FFA have been given power of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. All this power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
Case regarding the Department of Ecology forcing fishers to bring inspector aboard and pay them for the privilege, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, is making it to the Supreme Court. Pile of gun rights organizations filed an amicus brief suggesting the underlying Chevron Deference, which hands near-total decision-making over ambiguities in law to the executive regulatory agencies, be pitched as Unconstitutional in full.TL;DW?
Two clerks who defended their 7-Eleven from a brazen robbery in Stockton, California are now being criminally investigated for assault after hitting the would-be robber with a stick, thwarting his illegal efforts.
As previously reported by the DC Enquirer, the robber was throwing cigarettes off the shelf by the handful into a large trash can, loudly proclaiming about how the clerks couldn't do anything to prevent him. When the thief attempted to leave with his stolen tobacco, one of the clerks grabbed him by the shirt and threw him to the floor. Afterward, the other clerk approached with a large wooden stick and began beating the robber who continued to resist.
In classic California fashion, defending your belongings and property is being punished. Both the men featured in the video are now being investigated for assault. The robber is also being investigated, though with California's track record of failing to ever actually punish any real criminals, there's no reason for anyone to get their hopes up.
The most disappointing part is that this is not the first time the man has stolen from the store. The clerks claim that he has stolen two other times and has made numerous threats against the clerks. You'd think someone who has stolen numerous times and made threats against workers would be punished, especially when their identity is known, but alas California is not a land where the law ever hopes to prevail.
Some have attempted to claim the charges are justified, claiming that the force used against the robber was excessive. The man in the video hit the robber with the stick upwards of two dozen times all while the man was on the floor begging for mercy, but how much sympathy should really be awarded to the robber?
Was the robber injured? More than likely so considering how many times he was hit. Was he killed? Of course not, the injuries sustained would be nowhere near enough to kill him. Does he deserve injuries for attempting to blatantly rob a store while mocking the workers? Of course, he does. No sympathy should be given to this man who is a repeat criminal with no respect for the workers or the law.
California is just continuing its policy of punishing people for defending their property all the while completely ignoring the skyrocketing crime rate in their cities. Of course, the state will argue that its crime rate is relatively low compared to other states, but considering how much of the crime in the state goes unreported and unpunished, that metric certainly isn't one to believe.
I can't believe California would be so racist and disrespectful to an immigrants culture. guess it really shows how their hierarchy currently stacks up.7-Eleven Clerks Being Investigated For Assault In California After Defending Their Store From Would-Be Robber
7-Eleven Clerks Being Investigated For Assault In California After Defending Their Store From Would-Be Robber
Two clerks who defended their 7-Eleven from a brazen robbery in Stockton, California are now being criminally investigate...dcenquirer.com
I can't believe California would be so racist and disrespectful to an immigrants culture. guess it really shows how their hierarchy currently stacks up.
I don't think it will take that long.And 20 years hence they will wonder why immigrants keep assasinating left wing prosicutors.
I don't think it will take that long.
No government is legitimate. Remember, your government hates you. Some governments are just less evil than others. And California is aiming for a gold in evil.If the government of California continues to answer their people's pleas for redress of these harms with more harm...well, that government ceases to be legitimate.
Is this an absolute statement, or just a statement about current governments in existence?No government is legitimate.