Good for NSSF
Doing the lord’s work again, they’re going after MA AG’s unilateral and unlawful ban on the most popular firearms in the country.
6 Responses to “Good for NSSF”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 5th, 2016 at 4:36 pm
What is the legal strategy that will work in a state where the entire government, including the judiciary, is willing to subvert their written laws in order to obtain a desired result?
Or is the plan to take a semiauto rifle ban to the supreme court and pray for a Roe v. Wade sort of decision that ends for decades all substantive legislative action on firearms, requires the strictest of judicial scrutiny for any legislation that does occur, expands itself over the years into emanations and penumbras of both numerated and unenumerated individual rights, and ends up being the political football tossed around to excite voters in party bases for decades to come?
Ah, who am I kidding? This lawsuit will end either in the lawsuit being dismissed a decade from now, or after millions of dollars and years of effort, judicial success, followed immediately by MA legislating this decree into law, followed by more decades of lawsuits over the legality of homemade slings that don’t have serial numbers on them.
August 5th, 2016 at 7:15 pm
LORD God, wreck that office, for our understanding before you, a holy and righteous rebuker of evil. And dear Jesus, note Mr. Mikee’s question above, only you know the scope of the problem. Wreck it all. Put a hedge of protection around SAF, bless and prosper their efforts mightily, in your precious name.
(uh, Uncle, don’t say “Lord’s work” unless you don’t care that I pray all over your webpage, I can’t help myself. Smile.)
August 5th, 2016 at 9:31 pm
Minor correction. It’s NSSF, not SAF.
August 5th, 2016 at 9:32 pm
I guess she has her Healey-o-centric view of the world, but it’s legally inaccurate.
We just got the new Dick’s/Field&Stream here in upstate NY today, and what an explosion of capitalism! The lines at the checkouts were long. They actually had people directing traffic at the checkouts, and needed them, it was that impressive. A vast array of guns, and most especially, here in NY, handguns – the counters were full of them from all major manufacturers. Yes, I know my j-frame snubby is obsolete, Glock 36 being the logical replacement, but it must be good for deer hunting, since the antis don’t complain that it isn’t, unlike the AR-15. Does that make sense? I’m going to have a bad dream like that, one of these nights.
In any event, some light entertainment, from a very entertaining fellow, one Noel Coward:
August 5th, 2016 at 9:36 pm
Mad dogs and Englishmen, and Healey too!
August 6th, 2016 at 12:24 am
Many, if not all of these same gun control advocates, will justify their “regulation” of “assault” rifles on the basis that these “assault” rifles are “weapons of war.” One such advocate is the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, who recently reinterpreted a Massachusetts law to outlaw ALL assault weapons.
In an opinion piece published July 20th, 2016 in the Boston Globe justifying her actions, she had this to say:
It’s no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It’s a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands.
AG Healey is taking these actions under state law. Unfortunately for her, not only does she lack the authority to unilaterally rewrite state law, but even if she did, her actions would be unconstitutional. And it’s not necessary to look to the Federal Constitution for the prohibition. Nope, it’s right there in Part the First, Article XVII, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.
This is the state constitution, so gun control advocates can’t claim that this is declaring a right that the states hold against Federal interference. This is a right that the PEOPLE hold against STATE interference. What, though, is the purpose of the right? Common defense. What is common defense?
WAR