Jump to content

starwatcher

Members
  • Posts

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by starwatcher

  1. I didn't watch the video but this can be very good for us in the long run. Either way this will go to SCOTUS ( whether or not they take it up will be unknown). But if it does get into SCOTUS they should rectify how this will work with US vs Miller which says the military test is the opposite, only weapons used for military purposes are protected by the 2nd. (That ruling was seriously flawed then and a ruling in the opposite today might force SCOTUS to rectify them) Which can then be used to challenge the NFA.

  2. If SCOTUS rules broadly and lower courts and states respect that ruling (hahah) how much you want to bet those red flag, order of protection cases will be handled openly like other court cases instead of like divorce/family/juvie court cases.

     

    Imagine making that decision, do you want to fight that red flag and have something searchable against your name or just take it discretely.

     

    That could really torpedo someone's job, housing, and prospective relationships searches.

  3. Let them declare the state a sensitive area, but require the government be held accountable for every crime committed within the sensitive area.

     

    You get robbed, the government is required to make you whole, you get assaulted the government pays for your medical bills. So on and so forth.

     

    If the government can find the perpetrator then the government has to go after them for reimbursement.

  4. When asked the machine gun question our side could have done a much better job:

     

    Something to the effect of;

     

    "It is quite possible that Bruen does find the NFA unconstitutional, but I'm not here to argue that law/case. Today I'm here to argue about a ban on commonly owned semi automatic arms."

     

    Then when Easterbrook goes on his tommy gun tangent, bring it back that there might be a challenge to the NFA per Bruen, but also state that its not known if tommy guns were commonly owned at that time.  (who the heck knows that off hand unless it was thoroughly researched before hand)

     

    Then when Easterbrook and Wood flexibly define what a "ban" is you need to pull out that the NFA didn't ban automatic weapons as tightly as this AWB does to AR-15s.

     

    its easy to hindsight this but the 2nd amendment side really wasn't polished.

  5. On 6/29/2023 at 11:52 AM, davel501 said:

     

    I just wanted one of the lawyers to say full auto is for establishing a base of fire while your buddy goes around and gets them from the side like the tricky girl from Jurassic Park. If you're 75 your wife probably doesn't move well enough to take on that role in home defense.

     

    Don't forget your children might be too small to hold a rifle but they are perfect for squad operated weapons. Need to drill into them how to use mortar firing tables.

  6. On 6/29/2023 at 11:17 AM, ealcala31 said:

    The 7th Circuit strategically attacked Erin Murphy. Maag was smarter than the 7th Circuit when he pointed out MGs were banned in 1986 not 1934. And it seemed that the 7th Circuit almost disregarded Herrera. We LOST b4 we even walked through the door. All I take from that is the 7th Circuit HATES SCOTUS...

     

    This really depends on your definition of banned. In a way machine guns aren't even banned today. That is if you don't mind getting a FFL 7 (or others) with SOT 2 in a friendly state.

×
×
  • Create New...