https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/2060421190708338776#m
https://xcancel.com/MorosKostas/status/2060421190708338776#m
The antigunners never gave up on their dream to ban handguns, they just realized that dream was deeply unpopular and decided to focus on “assault weapons” and ancillary restrictions like fees, wait times, etc.
The Glock Switch moral panic gave Everytown and the other groups cover to demand that their allies in California and other blue states sue Glock. Now, they are getting them to ban Glock.
By banning Glock and its clones, they ban the most popular handgun platform in the country. And they won’t stop there; they will find some pretext to declare other popular handgun models “too dangerous” and ban those too. Death by a thousand cuts.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has done nothing so far to stop about a dozen states from banning the most popular rifles in the country. Bruen is working out great…if you are in a pro-gun circuit. Antigun circuits like the Ninth, Second, First, etc. are treating it like a joke and have effectively re-imposed interest balancing, and are upholding pretty much all draconian gun control.
So of course antigun states are emboldened to put their toes into the handgun ban waters once again.
If the Court has any self-respect, if John Roberts cares about the legitimacy of his institution at all, they must take on a hardware case soon and make clear that bans on common firearms are unconstitutional.
And then, they must follow that up with frequent summary reversals of the inevitable antigun circuit court defiance of that ruling.
Chicken, meet egg?
More like Egg, meet ice cold frying pan!
broken down to an understandable description = ?
standing by…
Walford is the case I hope Scotus rules in favor of. They should, it’s pretty common in other CCW states to be able to carry at businesses open to the public. Hemani, to be honest, I don’t gave a shit about with all the other cases pending. Hopefully we will get other rulings before the end of their term which I think is the end of June/early July?
yes, I only hope that they TELL what a “sensitive” place is. If they leave any ambiguity in the ruling then the commies will only exploit it. example: “only a government owned BUILDING which provides ARMED and CONTROLLED access can be regulated” state parks, beaches restaurant’s w/wo alcohol and so on can not be infringed upon. then we can move on to duty to inform and its unconstitutionality.
If the SCOTUS denied petition in NSSF v James what possible chance does a ruling in our favor of any 2A case have?