Mass Killings at Virginia Walmart

Here I was thinking this entire time that voluntarily meant you had a choice.

 

You have it now, so what's stopping you?

 

that shooting was what-over a decade ago. what exactly is your solution to what you apparently find vexing?

 

*Sigh*.

Heller examined linguistic sources from the founding to interpret the sentence.
Heller dealt only with DCs law, it was not against the NFA because the NFA was not being sued over. Therefore the power of the court to repeal it did not exist, and they didn't even touch it in their analysis.
They simply presumed but did not analyze because it wasn't relevant to the case.

Go read Bruen which holds that only gun control that has an analog in the founding era can stay. Now go read the committee minutes on the passage of the NFA where they are jerking each other off about how novel the concept is.
Remain upset if you wish, but that's how it works. The NFA's days are numbered and the more you push it to a head the worse it will be for your side of the argument.

 

Working the appellate process takes time.

Were you not aware that there are roughly over a dozen cases doing work right now?

 

conservative justices tend to respect precedent. Scalia admitted he would not overturn bad precedent if doing so would cause "social upheaval" Reading BRUEN, I cannot see the 1934 NFA surviving a challenge. The new court showed that it is more willing to throw out unconstitutional decisions as they did with Roe

 

It has not even gotten to first base on this issue, aka not even in the district courts. But then again, maybe you should read the Miller case.

 

All justices tend to respect the precedent generally. But even conservative justices are not that stupid, unlike certain groups. They do not want a free for all. Pretty much how Conservatives talk about the CW but never do anything about it. always wanting someone else to start it

 

A 6-3 conservative advantage on the Supreme Court.

With some of those conservatives being FSWs (Federalist Society Weirdos)

 

Heller decision reaffirmed the two decisions I referenced. Nothing more, nothing less. It did not grant access to all firearms. And even I agreed with the decision there.

Pistols are naturally self-defense firearms, and that is what Heller was deciding on. The "linguistic" aspect was for self defense only, nothing more, nothing less. The rest of your post is pure fantasy and not even the majority of opinions agree with you there.

 

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc_2a_legal_tracker

 

You've never been voluntold before?

 

There are times when those conservative justices find their "inner liberalism" such as Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and even Barrett. You have only Alito and Thomas that are truly on "your side" no matter what.

 

I also used to have to go to mandatory fun days.

 

If I ran the USA, those laws would be gone and those who continued to support them would be tried for treason. I do what I can to get justices like Barrett appointed. It's paying off. But I understand that politicians who promise the masses goodies paid for by people like me, have lots of power

 

we all agree that the USSC often does not actually follow the constitution, so we who support our rights have to remain vigilant and guard against those who want to further erode our freedoms

 

I love how the ATF argued suppressors weren't firearms in the Texas case.

That was funny.

 

What is your malfunction concerning the Federalist society. My biggest regret was telling Steve Calabresi and Peter Keisler I was too busy to start a chapter at my law school when the group was founded. I was the varsity squash coach, on the moot court board and didn't have time

 

Throwing out the NFA doesn't create a free for all.
People were buying machineguns by mail order cash on delivery prior, and they were buying them at stores through most of the 60s too.

If you go slowly here is how it will work: 1st, SBR/SBS will be removed, 2nd suppressors, 3rd the AOW category, 4th the Hughes amendment to FOPA will be repealed opening the NFA registry to new entries and only 5th will machineguns on the NFA be tackled.

If you try to roll all gun control and further gun control in to the NFA, you're going to get it all struck at once.

 

Like the Obama administration saying Obamacare wasn't a tax before the supreme court

 

Heller did not reaffirm Miller ffs. Again: The NFA was not at issue in Heller therefore the Court had no power to effect it and declined to analyze it in depth.

Further: Miller was a puppet case, the defense counsel didn't file any evidence or pleadings ffs and directly after got a fed court appointment.
Miller himself was stone dead by the time the case went to court.

Heller was deciding on DCs hand guns must be inoperable in the home law only. It examined no other law.
The linguistic aspect was to analyze the meaning of the 2nd amendment. See the prefatory and operative clause discussion and the cites and footnotes? That part.

Go read Bruen and show me where it doesn't say what I claimed then. Go on. Show the class if its there and you're not making it up.
Pull the committee meeting minutes for the passage of the NFA and/or show me the analog during the founding.

 

Are you are showing is second amendment cases, which could mean practically anything, when it comes to firearms? And none mention anything about the 1934 Firearms Act. Some of these are probably dealing with open carry issues in that state or some other state-regulated firearms laws.

so you want to try this again?

 

Ever withdrawn your 401k or IRA before the age of 59 1/2 and not met any of the exceptions? Yes, you have an early withdrawal penalty, which is an additional tax. The same prinicple applied to the ACA if you were not covered and did not meet any of the exceptions set forth in law and proposed regulations. Supreme Court got it right and Roberts found his inner liberalism there.

 

Road rage shootings are crimes, so is shooting up walmart because you felt bullied. Going postal is not an excuse. An assault or mutual combat in a bar that a party escalates by leaving and returning with a weapon is intentional murder with malice aforethought ffs.
The populace at large is not responsible for the torts and crimes of others. Disarming the law abiding does not protect them.

 

LOL, Miller challenged the act almost immediately after the act was signed into law. It lost and therefore became precedent. If you read the majority opinion, it did reference United States vs Cruikshank, which is the first case establishing the individual right.