Supreme Court Debates Banning Machine Guns
The idea that rights are limited is simply not true. OUR rights were outlined to limit the GOVERNME…
Government exists to maintain civil order and "to effect [the] Safety and Happiness" of the People.…
Absent that, there is no rights violation at all.
Here are the top political news stories for today.
ok armchair lawyer. its not like we have centuries of case law and legal experience to figure this out. Each amendment on the bill of rights has its own tests, that courts have came up with through the centuries after studying issues that come up.
@PacifistRaisinsGreen2yrs2Y
Thanks for the promotion! Certainly I am no lawyer, although I very much admire those lawyers who think in fundamentals associated with liberty and the right all of us have to live as we choose, with one caveat: the use of force or fraud against another is immoral, unjust, and ultimately irrational.
To a rational person, who wants to live their life as they choose, in pursuit of their own happiness and values, they must also afford all others that same ability. It is irrational to expect that rights violating criminal or civl actions taken by yourself should not be allowed to others. More simply, crime should not pay.
Problem is not by executive order, need congress...you want a rabbit hole, read the ATF def of a firearm, then try to pin the tail on the donkey (AR-15 lower)...doesn't meet the definition of the laws we've enforced for 30 years.
DOJ has dropped a bunch of gun cases where the defense was going to argue an AR lower doesn't meet the definition of a firearm, so why is it regulated? The DOJ and WH (regardless of who's in it) hasn't wanted any federal court to get ahold of this one, but the issues are essentially the same as bump stocks, you want change work with congress.
Join in on more popular conversations.
