Heller preemptively rejected the First Circuit’s notion that the right to keep and bear arms should be balanced against government’s claimed interest in banning guns and magazines.
What we in the US are seeing now, and have ever since Donald Trump was elected, is an attempt by Democrats to weaponize the legal system to further a nakedly political agenda.
With the nation’s widest-ranging so-called ‘red-flag’ law, Newsom is demonstrating he’s more interested in settling political scores and pursuing far-left ideologies than actually governing.
“But people in China didn’t ask me about, you know, people owning AR-15s and mowing each other down in a mall,” Kerr said.
Thirty years into the national debate over semi-automatic rifles and ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes, the only thing that has changed is the openness with which Democrats demonstrate their determination to prohibit the private ownership of firearms.
All top 10 Democrat presidential candidates advocate banning the most popular rifles and ammunition magazines in America. Five don’t want to wait for their current owners to die.
Creeping government control is nothing new, but the DOJ’s recent disregard for the Second and Fourth Amendments shows old protections against abuses of power will wear thin without public vigilance.
These are the changes Republicans should make to federal gun laws, once they again hold the White House and both houses of Congress.
Should women be permitted to protect their own bodies? Or should they be forced to passively endure an attack until an authorized protector from the government can ride to their rescue?
It’s not only to prevent a Democrat landslide in 2020. It’s because Democrats will settle for nothing less than gun confiscation.
The media should stop using phrases like ‘mandatory gun buybacks.’ What Democrats propose is the first-ever national confiscation of guns.
‘I got the gun for that purpose, but I never thought I would really have to use it,’ said a women who shot at the men who tried to rob her at 2:30 a.m Tuesday morning.
Gun rights defenders are willing to genuinely compromise. But gun control advocates do not negotiate in good faith, creating bad policy with no logical end.
If gun control advocates are really worried about fatality numbers, restrictive firearm policies are not the place to start.
Do you feel comfortable giving up a cornerstone of our republic for a safety dependent upon enforcement by a government that has failed at this before?
New York City is far from the only government with unconstitutional gun control laws on the books. Nearly every court in the nation has ignored Heller and McDonald.
‘I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.’
In his new memoir, former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens writes Heller was ‘the most clearly incorrect decision that the Court announced during my tenure on the bench.’
The fact the client owned a gun and had firearm permits was enough to label him as reasonably certain to cause death or serious bodily harm and report him to the police.
These military officers claim the moral high ground in the gun debate. Their service is admirable, but they hardly speak for all of us.
- Impeachment Is Slowly Destroying Democrats’ 2020 Political HopesThe Democratic effort to impeach Trump and overturn thecontinue reading >
- Biden Fat Shames Iowa Voter Who Says Hunter’s Ukraine Work Is DisqualifyingAn Iowa voter criticized Joe Biden for his son's dealincontinue reading >
- The Feds Don’t Need To Tell You Or Get A Warrant To Collect Your Emails And Phone RecordsIn reality, the government can obtain electronic communcontinue reading >