In Defense of the Second Amendment

Floyd1977

Registered User
@Floyd1977 there’s your answer, someone breakis into your home, or car, steals your gun, then commits a crime, then they charge you. That’s the problem, you have fine nothing wrong, the anti gun group is looking for every way to vilify gun owners, what better way than “gun owner illegally left a gun “unsecured” according to parameters we choose” meanwhile exempting others. They are bullshit feel good “but who will think of the children” laws
I hear you. I said it was cunty that they're trying to pass a law. And I complely understand their intention to demonize gun owners. I get that if someone illegally breaks into your property, they've committed the crime (if someone broke into your home and stole a kitchen knife or a baseball bat and used those instruments to kill someone, would you get charged for that too?). I was more thinking of the proverbial 10 year old kid is playing in the house with his friend, finds his father's unsecured and loaded gun and accidentally shoots his friend with it. What am I going to say in that case, that the gun owner is at no fault? I'm just suggesting that a responsible gun owner should be securing their guns when out of reach because when the aforementioned situation does happen, the gun grabbers just go "SEE! SEE!" and then work to pass more bullshit laws.
 

NuttyJim

Registered User
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nt-decision-blocking-california-ammo-ban.html

Liberal 9th Circuit surprises with pro-2nd Amendment decision blocking California ammo ban
Adam Shaw 3 hours ago
Second Amendment supporters hit with death threats
Is the anti-gun crowd prone to violent intimidation? Radio talk show host Chris Hahn and NRATV host Grant Stinchfield join the debate on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
Second Amendment activists were given a surprise boost this week when the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals backed a lower court’s decision to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.
Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction Tuesday.
The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction or by concluding that magazines fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.

"The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the incorrect level of scrutiny," the judges also found. "The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a 'historical pedigree.'"
“This is a significant win for law-abiding gun owners in California,” Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “This unconstitutional law criminalizes mere possession of many standard capacity magazines and would instantly turn many law-abiding gun owners into criminals.”

Dissenting from the ruling, Judge John Clifford Wallace said that evidence provided by the state, including studies and surveys showing the use of large-capacity magazines increase the lethality of gun violence, “was more than sufficient to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.”
National Review’s David French, who opposes the ban, noted that the Ninth Circuit ruling was limited but also linked constitutional protection of firearms to potential militia use -- a development he described as “encouraging.”
The NRA noted that a ruling in the lower courts is expected soon, and that the case therefore will likely be before the 9th Circuit again.

But President Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who has a strong record of defending gun rights, to the Supreme Court. The NRA reflected that in its statement, expressing hope that if the the case is appealed, “the Supreme Court will likely have a new justice who respects the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.”

The California Department of Justice told The San Diego Union-Tribune that it will “continue to vigorously defend the challenged law.”
Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”

Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback this week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.
Fox News' Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.
Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News.. He can be reached here.
 

NuttyJim

Registered User
Liberal 9th Circuit surprises with pro-2nd Amendment decision blocking California ammo ban

Adam Shaw 3 hours ago

Second Amendment supporters hit with death threats

Is the anti-gun crowd prone to violent intimidation? Radio talk show host Chris Hahn and NRATV host Grant Stinchfield join the debate on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
Second Amendment activists were given a surprise boost this week when the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals backed a lower court’s decision to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.

Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction Tuesday.
The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction or by concluding that magazines fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.

"The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the incorrect level of scrutiny," the judges also found. "The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a 'historical pedigree.'"
“This is a significant win for law-abiding gun owners in California,” Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “This unconstitutional law criminalizes mere possession of many standard capacity magazines and would instantly turn many law-abiding gun owners into criminals.”

Dissenting from the ruling, Judge John Clifford Wallace said that evidence provided by the state, including studies and surveys showing the use of large-capacity magazines increase the lethality of gun violence, “was more than sufficient to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.”
National Review’s David French, who opposes the ban, noted that the Ninth Circuit ruling was limited but also linked constitutional protection of firearms to potential militia use -- a development he described as “encouraging.”

The NRA noted that a ruling in the lower courts is expected soon, and that the case therefore will likely be before the 9th Circuit again.
But President Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who has a strong record of defending gun rights, to the Supreme Court. The NRA reflected that in its statement, expressing hope that if the the case is appealed, “the Supreme Court will likely have a new justice who respects the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.”

The California Department of Justice told The San Diego Union-Tribune that it will “continue to vigorously defend the challenged law.”
Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”

Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback this week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.
Fox News' Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.
Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News.. He can be reached here.
 

ysr50

Well-Known Member
Donator
The 9th only said they agreed that the lower court didn't do anything above and beyond whatever power it had been granted. If the case gets kicked up to the 9th I'd suspect it'll get shot down. I'd love to have standard magazines, but possesion of one is a felony, and I like my clean record so I will just obey the nonsense.
 

the Streif

¡¡¡¡sıʞunɹɹɹɹɹɹɹℲ
Donator
Got a file not found on that link
Try this: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-relea...ppeals-ninth-circuit-concealed-weapons-permit

Basically a 3 judge panel from the 9th circuit had ruled to relax California's conceal carry restrictions and the California Attorney General Kamala Harris (now Senator Harris) appealed the ruling to have the full court hear it and the full court ruled that conceal carry is NOT a constitutionally guaranteed right.

tl;dr Kamala Harris is a gun rights hating cunt.
 

ysr50

Well-Known Member
Donator
Try this: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-relea...ppeals-ninth-circuit-concealed-weapons-permit

Basically a 3 judge panel from the 9th circuit had ruled to relax California's conceal carry restrictions and the California Attorney General Kamala Harris (now Senator Harris) appealed the ruling to have the full court hear it and the full court ruled that conceal carry is NOT a constitutionally guaranteed right.

tl;dr Kamala Harris is a gun rights hating cunt.
That's from 2014, please try to keep up.
 

the Streif

¡¡¡¡sıʞunɹɹɹɹɹɹɹℲ
Donator
That's from 2014, please try to keep up.
Yes, I know. Earlier in this thread I said that Kamala will interfere in 3....2...1...

Tattered asked who is Kamala Harris.

I posted one link that didn't work for him.

I then posted another link in an effort to explain who she is, and what she did to interfere in Cali's CCW rights fight which wold explain my original post of Kamala interfering in 3....2...1...


Please try to keep up.:action-sm
 

OilyJillFart

Well-Lubed Member

the Streif

¡¡¡¡sıʞunɹɹɹɹɹɹɹℲ
Donator

Florida sheriff says 'Stand Your Ground' law prevents arrest in fatal shooting in parking spot dispute
By Robert Gearty | Fox News

28-year-old Markeis McGlockton was shot and killed in a dispute over a parking spot in Clearwater, Fla., Thursday. The sheriff who investigated said the shooter was justified under the state's "Stand Your Ground" law. (Fox 13 Tampa)
A Florida sheriff says the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law prevents the arrest of a man who fatally shot another man last week during an argument over a handicapped parking spot.
Markeis McGlockton, 28, shoved Michael Drejka, 47, to the ground during the argument Thursday at a Clearwater convenience store and then was shot and killed when Drejka, from a sitting position, pulled out a gun he legally owned and opened fire, shooting McGlockton once in the chest.

“He told deputies that he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law," Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said, according to WFTS-TV. “No matter how you slice it or dice it that was a violent push to the ground.”
Gualtieri announced Drejka had been cleared Friday. His decision led to a small protest at the store Saturday, Fox 13 Tampa reported. The State Attorney General could still make an arrest.
Fox 13 on Friday aired surveillance video showing the shooting and the moments leading up to it.
The station quoted Gualtieri as saying the facts were clear: McGlockton violently shoved Drejka to the ground and Drejka feared for his life. Because of that, he was covered under "Stand Your Ground.”
McGlockton, of Clearwater, shoved Drejka after he came out of the store and saw Drejka arguing with his girlfriend Britany Jacobs, 25, who was parked in the handicapped parking spot.
Drejka, also of Clearwater, confronted her because she didn’t have a permit to legally park there, the Tampa Bay Times reported.
McGlockton had gone inside to purchase snacks and sodas with their 5-year-old son, according to the paper. Jacobs was waiting for him in their car with their two other children, a 4-month-old and a 3-year-old.

Image from surveillance video showing fatal shooting after an argument over a handicapped parking spot at a convenience store in Clearwater, Fla. (Fox 13 Tampa)
Jacobs told WFTS that Drejka was getting away with murder.
“How is this 'Stand Your Ground' law?" she asked. "It’s not! Markeis pushed him, how does that justify a bullet?”
The Tampa Bay Times reported interviewing Rick Kelly, 31, who said that two months ago he was at the store and parked in the same handicapped spot. He said he saw Drejka walking around his vehicle checking to see if he had a permit, which he didn’t.
He said that during the ensuing argument Drejka threatened to shoot him.
"It’s a repeat,” Kelly told the paper. “It happened to me the first time. The second time it’s happening, someone’s life got taken. He provoked that."
That doesn’t matter, Gualtieri told reporters when he announced that Drejka wouldn’t be charged.
“What’s relevant is not whether this guy’s a good guy, nice guy, or whether he’s a jerk, or whether he’s a thorn in people’s side and what he’s done, whether it’s three weeks ago, three months ago or three years ago,” the sheriff said. “What’s relevant and the only thing we can look at here is was he in fear of further bodily harm.”


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/2...n-fatal-shooting-in-parking-spot-dispute.html
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
The guy defending himself from the savage just has to say he was convinced the attacker was reaching for a gun in his pocket as he was taking a step back.
It isn't hard to believe, and quite likely was true.
The entire thing makes my blood boil, this is a complete cluster fuck, as usual, the media is twisting it into the usual “unarmed black man” narrative....

This is how I see it;
Angry white guy (with a gun) confronting an angry black woman (how dare you say anything other than praise)

Over her parking in a handicapped space (entitlement) angry black woman acts like angry (entitled) black woman.


Out comes angry black man (don’t make the black kids angry)


Angry black man immediately and possibly with out warning, (no audio) commits aggravated assault on the older (allegedly handicapped) armed white man.

Now assaulted, laying on the ground, and at a clear disadvantage, angry black woman exits the vehicle to continue the assault on the now defenseless and disoriented white man.

Split second decision time, end the assault with deadly force, or get your head kicked in and possibly killed with your own fire arm.

If you watch the video there is 3, possibly more, assailents present,
1. The now dead perpetrator of the original assault
2. The woman, who exited the vehicle within 2 seconds of the aggravated assault.
3 and a 3rd person, probably just a by stander, but, still advancing on the confrontation (he actually flees when the weapon is brandished)

The news is once again relentless saying “unarmed black man” and “he was fleeing” no, he took a single step back, and, the woman was still advancing, so was the third (probably innocent bystander) who actually fled when the weapon came out.
The shooter had no real choice, once he was on the ground, after the assault , he had no choice but to defend himself with deadly force, or, possibly be further assaulted. This isn’t a “stand your ground” this is self defense
The arm chair experts are infuriating, the news “experts” even more so because they are trying to compare this with the saint skittles case, saying that the zimzam used “stand your ground” which he didn’t, it was self defense. The stupid sheriff made the mistake of saying it was “stand your ground” when it isn’t, the shooter was already assaulted, laying on the ground and at a clear disadvantage and open to an even greater probability of bodily harm by now two (possibly 3) assalents...

I understand that the news media wants to push the racist, white, gun owner kills defenseless black man narrative, but wow... the mental gymnastics of his is astounding, also the one sided opinions being broadcast, GMA had a “legal expert on” (a leftist, black, former government legal type, woman) with leftist cry baby robin Roberts, basically calling this a murder (it’s technically a homicide there is a legal difference which they didn’t address, of course)

The “over a parking spot” is an over simplified and slanted view of the situation. If the rolls were reversed the narrative would be way different
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
If the dumb ass didn't want to get deaded, he shouldn't have assaulted the old bastard.

Of course, the leftists are attempting to spin it. They need a race war to hold on to their waning power base.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
The entire thing makes my blood boil, this is a complete cluster fuck, as usual, the media is twisting it into the usual “unarmed black man” narrative....

This is how I see it;
Angry white guy (with a gun) confronting an angry black woman (how dare you say anything other than praise)

Over her parking in a handicapped space (entitlement) angry black woman acts like angry (entitled) black woman.


Out comes angry black man (don’t make the black kids angry)


Angry black man immediately and possibly with out warning, (no audio) commits aggravated assault on the older (allegedly handicapped) armed white man.

Now assaulted, laying on the ground, and at a clear disadvantage, angry black woman exits the vehicle to continue the assault on the now defenseless and disoriented white man.

Split second decision time, end the assault with deadly force, or get your head kicked in and possibly killed with your own fire arm.

If you watch the video there is 3, possibly more, assailents present,
1. The now dead perpetrator of the original assault
2. The woman, who exited the vehicle within 2 seconds of the aggravated assault.
3 and a 3rd person, probably just a by stander, but, still advancing on the confrontation (he actually flees when the weapon is brandished)

The news is once again relentless saying “unarmed black man” and “he was fleeing” no, he took a single step back, and, the woman was still advancing, so was the third (probably innocent bystander) who actually fled when the weapon came out.
The shooter had no real choice, once he was on the ground, after the assault , he had no choice but to defend himself with deadly force, or, possibly be further assaulted. This isn’t a “stand your ground” this is self defense
The arm chair experts are infuriating, the news “experts” even more so because they are trying to compare this with the saint skittles case, saying that the zimzam used “stand your ground” which he didn’t, it was self defense. The stupid sheriff made the mistake of saying it was “stand your ground” when it isn’t, the shooter was already assaulted, laying on the ground and at a clear disadvantage and open to an even greater probability of bodily harm by now two (possibly 3) assalents...

I understand that the news media wants to push the racist, white, gun owner kills defenseless black man narrative, but wow... the mental gymnastics of his is astounding, also the one sided opinions being broadcast, GMA had a “legal expert on” (a leftist, black, former government legal type, woman) with leftist cry baby robin Roberts, basically calling this a murder (it’s technically a homicide there is a legal difference which they didn’t address, of course)

The “over a parking spot” is an over simplified and slanted view of the situation. If the rolls were reversed the narrative would be way different
Spot on.

If you want to be Billy Badass, you need to be mindful of the consequences. The recently deceased did not.
 

mr. sin

Registered User
from fb

WARNING! Texas Legislature interim session: #GunControl hearing.
Your Life, Liberty, and Property are at risk.
*Please Share*

LIVE FEED
 
Why are there not any "community organizers" encouraging inner city yoots, aspiring rappers and GED students how to deal with the inevitable contacts with law enforcement? Maybe even an instructional video? I carry pretty much all the time, and if I deal with the cops, first thing out of my mouth is that I'm carrying. While I stand motionless, waiting for instructions, or sit perfectly still, both hands on the wheel.
 

the Streif

¡¡¡¡sıʞunɹɹɹɹɹɹɹℲ
Donator
Liberal 9th Circuit backs right to carry firearms in public, in latest pro-2nd Amendment ruling

By Alex Pappas | Fox News

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday backed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public. (REUTERS/Jim Urquhart)
The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.
“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.
The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.
9TH CIRCUIT SURPRISES WITH PRO-2ND AMENDMENT DECISION BLOCKING CALIFORNIA AMMO BAN
It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.
The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction last week.
Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”
Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.
Fox News' Adam Shaw and Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ublic-in-latest-pro-2nd-amendment-ruling.html
 

mr. sin

Registered User
Liberal 9th Circuit backs right to carry firearms in public, in latest pro-2nd Amendment ruling

By Alex Pappas | Fox News

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday backed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public. (REUTERS/Jim Urquhart)
The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.
“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.
The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.
9TH CIRCUIT SURPRISES WITH PRO-2ND AMENDMENT DECISION BLOCKING CALIFORNIA AMMO BAN
It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.
The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction last week.
Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”
Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.
Fox News' Adam Shaw and Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ublic-in-latest-pro-2nd-amendment-ruling.html
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Liberal 9th Circuit backs right to carry firearms in public, in latest pro-2nd Amendment ruling

By Alex Pappas | Fox News

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday backed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public. (REUTERS/Jim Urquhart)
The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.
“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.
The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.
9TH CIRCUIT SURPRISES WITH PRO-2ND AMENDMENT DECISION BLOCKING CALIFORNIA AMMO BAN
It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.
The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction last week.
Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”
Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.
Fox News' Adam Shaw and Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ublic-in-latest-pro-2nd-amendment-ruling.html
I wonder if they're just ruling this way to prevent these lawsuits from getting to the current Supreme Court, who could rule in favor of national constitutional carry and remove all power from the liberal states/courts in the future.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
That’s old news, and while in the eyes of the media, the pistol in the photo may be an Ar15 it’s a single shot “liberator” pistol designed specifically to be used one time, to get a better gun
 
Top