{"id":37617,"date":"2022-07-08T19:17:03","date_gmt":"2022-07-08T23:17:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=37617"},"modified":"2022-07-08T19:17:03","modified_gmt":"2022-07-08T23:17:03","slug":"more-good-news-on-the-2nd-amendment-front","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=37617","title":{"rendered":"More good news on the 2nd Amendment front"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. The continuing good news on the individual\u2019s right to Keep and Bear Arms continues. Since the recent decision by the Supreme Court that, once again, people have the right to carry guns outside the home, other cases that have been churning their way up to the supreme court have suddenly been shoved back down by the supreme court to the lower courts.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As an example, many of the totalitarian controlled blue states like to ban standard size magazines. Otherw like to ban certain types of rifles and pistols because of the way they look. There have been a number of challenges and a lot of the lower courts have sided with the Communazi run states. Until now. Here are the details from Bloomberg Law<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

Several challenges to state gun laws were sent back to lower courts in light of the US Supreme Court\u2019s landmark Second Amendment ruling limiting restrictions on firearm possession outside the home. <\/b><\/p>\n

Known as a \u201cGVR”\u2014for grant, vacate, and remand\u2014the justices often allow lower courts another shot at cases after a high court decision that could potentially change the analysis or outcome of a case. <\/b><\/p>\n

We see this a lot, especially with some courts bad habits of ignoring the law and the Constitution. (The 9th<\/sup> Circus court of Appeals comes to mind) However, with the recent Bruen case, a lot of restrictions that have been challenged are now unconstitutional, which is why they\u2019re being sent back down.<\/p>\n

The cases sent back Thursday include challenges to bans in New Jersey and California on high-capacity magazines that hold ten rounds or more, Maryland\u2019s assault weapons ban, and Hawaii\u2019s restrictions on open-carry. In each case, the lower courts had upheld the restrictions. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

From what I\u2019ve been reading, Maryland basically outlawed the ownership of almost all firearms. Hawaii has long made it almost impossible for citizens to have the means to defend themselves from criminals and foreign invasion. (The PRC would not have to worry about the citizens shooting at them if they can get ashore)<\/p>\n

The justices didn\u2019t explain why they sent the cases back, but presumably it was to apply the new test laid out by Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019s majority opinion in <\/b>New York State & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/b><\/em>. The ruling was the Supreme Court\u2019s first major Second Amendment case in over a decade and limited the restrictions that states can place on where gun owners can take their firearms. <\/b><\/p>\n

The test the article is talking about is basically a large blunt object, with spikes embedded in it, to the back of the heads of the \u201cThe constitution is a living document\u201d crowd.<\/p>\n

Courts should look only to the constitutional text and that nation\u2019s history of gun restrictions in determining whether a state has run afoul of the Second Amendment, Thomas wrote, adding that they should not defer to legislative determinations about whether gun restrictions are necessary for public health and safety.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWhile that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable\u2014and, elsewhere, appropriate\u2014it is not deference that the Constitution demands here,\u201d Thomas said. <\/b><\/p>\n

In other words, Justice Thomas said \u201cRead the damn text you morons. It\u2019s plain as day.\u201d<\/p>\n

The new test will make it harder for courts to uphold the restrictions. <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I was talking with someone who has a large collection of firearms of all types, and he was the one who told me that the Supreme Court decision basically put an end to the gun and magazine bans as well as the denial of the ability to carry them. This person and I both live in the same state where we have constitutional carry, both concealed and open.<\/p>\n

We are both curious how this is going to affect the People\u2019s Democratic Republic of Taxachusetts, which basically denies your 2nd<\/sup> Amendment rights without government permission. (You have to have a Firearms Identification Card to buy and possess any guns at all) There are going to be a number of court challenges to current laws all over the country in the next few months, and I expect the states that banned the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment are going to start losing big time.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (1<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

\u00a0