That, good sir, is THE absolute BEST argument I have ever seen with regard to “gun control” and how to effect the battlefield of ideas.

BRAVO!

The one thing to navigate is the issue that 80 million votes were counted on behalf of a nation that is CLAMORING for a peoples master.

Nobody got upset when dear leader declared that the constitution was not absolute.
Nobody got upset when he said get a shot or wear a mask until you do.
Nobody got upset when he said MAYBE you'd be "allowed" to celebrate Independence day with your friends and family.
Nobody has shown any real concern that St Fauci betrayed the health and welfare of the entire world to the PRC for personal riches and power.
Nobody batted an eye when candidate biden angrily told a laborer "I don't work for you"

A servant to the people by definition means that the people are the ones doing the real work of building our nation while the government "serves". Sadly, every day there seems to be more proof that at least 51% of Americans are LOOKING for a benevolent dictator to lead our nation.


But don't mind me - I'm just a hopeless romantic and a shameless incurable cynic.

Originally posted by Grateful CitizenFinest Kind :lifter

An excellent post and analogy for a defense of the Second Amendment sir.
There is one hick -up in your post that creates a problem:

It is my belief that the average American citizen who are enamored with themselves and get all of their news from MSN, can't keep their nose out of fakebook, or the ever perusing of twatter, believe that this country is a democracy. They just don't understand that Republic part of things.

Just my opinion of course.

Good news story for the day.

Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional

https://apple.news/Ays6D6gs8QI2U-VH3zvydyw

"Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned," the judge wrote.

Still reading the decision, but something starting on page 25 is critical:
Burden of proof.

“The constitutional imperative is on the government to not infringe. The correct starting orientation is that no arm may be prohibited.”
(page 26)

<edit>

The whole section on “Militia Use” starting on page 80 is also critical.

This opinion cuts to the core issues.
It is excellently written and may serve as a foundation for future 2nd amendment cases.

“In the end, the Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions or guidelines for social balancing. The Bill of Rights prevents the tyranny of the majority from taking away the rights of a minority. When a state nibbles on Constitutional rights, who protects the minorities? The federal courts. The Second Amendment protects any law-abiding citizen’s right to choose to be armed to defend himself, his family, and his home. At the same time, the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms to use should the militia be needed to fight against invaders, terrorists, and tyrants. The Second Amendment is about America’s freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland. California’s assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom.”
(pages 91-92)

In the conclusion:
“There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are better.”
(page 92)

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1622850515

This could (strong emphasis on COULD) be the one damn sentence that unlocks the whole Gordian Knot! This will almost undoubtedly get to the “9 clown side show in black robes” and then the entire thing is at best a 50/50.

From Page 32 & 33

Is anyone aware of a military that issues AR-15's? I'm not. In which war or on which battlefield was the AR-15 used? I'm a little fuzzy on where the Governor gets his history. Perhaps someone should ask him for a citation for his statement.

He used the Gun Control INC., and Mom’s Demand Action playbook. They all have a list of false information and deliberately misleading words to confuse people about the facts.



On a second note: the current Ninth Circuit is predominantly leaning conservative so it is a good time for this judge to open this can of worms (or is that whup-ass!)

Yes, will be interesting. This particular judge is regularly quick to issue stays on his own orders, so DPRCA will certainly appeal. But, other than SCOTUS, the 9th Circuit appointments were #1 on Pres. Trump's playlist and their usual RBG-like verdicts have gone almost 180°.

Watched a video which brought up an interesting observation.
The left seems very disturbed about the comparison of the AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife.

The left understands messaging.
This comparison scares them because it takes away the mystique of “assault weapons”.

Their biggest worry is guns becoming no big deal.

Agree there is a lot of meat on the bone here. Some of the language is stuff you could hear issuing from Thomas' mouth (or Scalia's were he here). It is a tough sell sometimes in discussion with folks - and not just younger ones - to get them on any BoR topic to the starting point mentioned in the decision.

It often came up in discussions years ago regarding our state's availability of open-carry:
"Well, what's the law?"
"There is no law."
"Well, then you can't do that."
"Sit down, have some more coffee & let me explain about 'that which isn't prohibited is permitted'."

I don't think SCOTUS should take this; I hope they just b-slap CA and send it back affirming the decision.

In my lifetime (which predates the 1968 GCA) have I seen conservatives from state and federal levels repudiate the overreach of the Democratic Party so blatantly as since the illegitimate election that was carried out in 2020. Lawmakers from local Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police, and up to state legislators (of both parties) and governors are pushing back on nearly every firearm control act or federal law that prohibits or infringes on the 2A and the rights guaranteed in the BoR.

If a “law” can’t be or won’t be enforced then it should be stricken from the books or re-written with the consent of the governed by a 2/3 majority. If it violates the constitution or BoR then it should go before the amendment process to be permanently changed and ratified by the states. No other process is acceptable and there is only one “right” that unequivocally stated “shall not be infringed”.

ODNT, while I whole heartedly agree with you, there are unfortunately others in a position of power that don't.
Sit back folks and enjoy the ever vise-like grip of gun control to squeeze incrementally tighter and tighter:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...n-legislation/

It seems they have come up with a way to make things happen that don't involve the Legislature. Wouldn't it be awesome if we actually had some representatives in our government that would stand up to bureaucrats dictating law and its definitions?

It would be - but any hopes of that happening in America evaporated when Mr Roarke and Tattoo went off the air during the Reagan administration.