U.S. Department of Justice Announces Second Amendment Pattern-or-Practice Investigation into California’s Los Angeles County
Protecting the Second Amendment rights of ordinary, law-abiding Americans is a high priority for this Administration.
Pam Bondi Haters, here you go:
- Thread starter 918v
- Start date
Yet DOJ is arguing suppressors aren't covered by the 2nd ammendment?
The jury is still out on Pam Bondi.
The jury is still out on Pam Bondi.
This being the Pit, someone will be along in a moment to post that if the Los Angeles County sheriff is not arrested and publicly executed by hanging, on Pay per View, then this all means nothing.
Well, we would at least then be erring on the side of finally correcting the issue.
I can guarantee you that while that may be extreme, at least the next sheriff would make sure not to infringe on civil rights.
Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies had an epic quote worth repeating. “ I have seen sweet milk go sour, but I have never seen sour milk go back the other way”
Still waiting to stand and clap.
Still waiting to stand and clap.
She’s anti-pot you have no chanceNot at all. She's a 100%
WOULD
This was from a rogue us district attorney, and has already been rescinded while the US Attorneys office evaluates ongoing litigation. The appearance is that they are changing course on almost all previous firearm related cases. We shall see.
Now that attorney should have or should be fired for stepping out of line but I have seen nothing about that yet.
But don’t get me wrong she has a less than desirable history before coming into the Trump admin.
Yawn- the AG has told state AGs and attorneys and police to
Follow the constitution ?Wake me up when it gets good, or she breaks 150 appearances on Fox News. And poke me with a stick when a certain list is released in full with no redactions.
Follow the constitution ?Wake me up when it gets good, or she breaks 150 appearances on Fox News. And poke me with a stick when a certain list is released in full with no redactions.
Suppressors infringe the free speech of a firearm.
If so then what is the reasoning for regulation?
These do the same thing but aren't an attachment:
R
Can you imagine having thread-on hearing protection? I don’t know which would be worse, earmuffs or earplugs.
Neither are barrels, bolts, and triggers. Technically it's just the receiver that is the "firearm".
And that is the trap; the Republic along with our rights have been shot in so for so long we are now in the position that we are supposed to be happy with a mere incompetent liar - instead of someone actively trying to ass rape us out of more.
How sad a state of affairs- we’ll maybe she can tell us again how good of a job she’s doing on one of her three Fox News appearances tonight or one of the 2 tomorrow.
I think his point is that they shouldn’t be. At least that’s how I read it and how I feel. I don’t think firearms should be regulated by the fed since that doesn’t stop crimes anyways. The doj doesn’t want suppressor covered by the second amendment cause then they can continue to collect a tax for every suppressor sold. Even though it’s a useless piece of pipe without a firearm to put it on.
You miss the point entirely, they are “Arms” as in the right to keep and bear ARMS, not just firearms. The second amendment protects all arms both offensive and defensive. No one is trying to say they are a firearm well I guess other than the NFA, but they must be and I believe will be recognized as Arms by the courts.
It's a crazy thing because you can argue it in so many ways depending on where you stand. They're arms, so they shall no be infringed! Or they're arms so they needed to be regulated. Or They're accessories so there should be no regulations, or they're accessories, not arms, so we can ban, tax or regulate them all we want!
Magazines (detachable, "high" capacity or not) are accessories, but vital to the function of arms, making them arms. Or they're accessories, clearly evident by all the arms that don't have them, so not protected.
Magazines (detachable, "high" capacity or not) are accessories, but vital to the function of arms, making them arms. Or they're accessories, clearly evident by all the arms that don't have them, so not protected.
They are protected so long as magazine fed guns exist. The existence of non magazine fed guns is not relevant to the status of a magazine.
Anti-2A, Fox News Barbie Bondi can kiss my ass…… unshaven.
SIMP cucks are killing this country.
SIMP cucks are killing this country.
Exactly, they are “firearm accessories” clearly protected under 2A.
Further specifically codified in DC v. Heller…….
So I said it as a double edged sword.
It is not a firearm so it should NOT be regulated
Because it is not a firearm they can do whatever they want with it
And as far as the tax stamp being $200 bucks still, that was equivalent to $3000 when it was implemented.
Is it an accessory ? Yes.
Is it needed to operate a firearm ? No
Should it take a year to get approval ? No and it is down to hours, days now.
Is a magazine an accessory ? Yes
Is it needed to operate a firearm ? Yes
Should be no regulations.
continue with each part.
You can buy any part and have it shipped to your front door EXCEPT the receiver or in SIG's striker fired the FCU frame.
It is not a firearm so it should NOT be regulated
Because it is not a firearm they can do whatever they want with it
And as far as the tax stamp being $200 bucks still, that was equivalent to $3000 when it was implemented.
Is it an accessory ? Yes.
Is it needed to operate a firearm ? No
Should it take a year to get approval ? No and it is down to hours, days now.
Is a magazine an accessory ? Yes
Is it needed to operate a firearm ? Yes
Should be no regulations.
continue with each part.
You can buy any part and have it shipped to your front door EXCEPT the receiver or in SIG's striker fired the FCU frame.
I'll agree with MegaGator. However, there are lots of men in upper levels of government and other agencies who have never served in combat or led men in combat. Remember, there was a time in this country when only landowners could vote, women couldn't vote. Once both those changed look how country changed.
The 2A protects the right to bear “arms”. Not being a firearm should not mean it also doesn’t fall under 2A protection. Swords, cannons, knives, grenades etc are all “arms”. Yep grenades, I want them, should be allowed.
