Democrat AGs Declare 'Assault Weapons' Aren't Protected by the Second Amendment

[Ingomike]

Reading this article drive my thinking to where I have a question on the whole concept of “common use” by the courts. Why are machine guns not considered “common use”? Are they not commonly owned and commonly taxed? Are they not as common as they can be since the government banned the sale of new ones?

So the government can declare a gun cannot be sold then gets to ban it because it is not ”common use” because of government restrictions? The government is playing heads I win, tails you lose, kind of game…

Democrat AGs Declare 'Assault Weapons' Aren't Protected by the Second Amendment

bearingarms.com

 

[Bluedragon]

The fact levying a tax on firearms and items related to arms including up to sales tax not being challenged as a violation of the 2nd based on it's infringment of paying a tax to exercise a right within the Bill of Rights is beyond me.

 

[printcraft]

Can we blame demoncrats for this one or...???

 

[Twangbanger]

Can we blame demoncrats for this one or...???

Everything is Democrats Democrats Democrats with you, isn't it? Sheesh...

 

[blain]

Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...
Wash... Rinse... Repeat...

 

[printcraft]

Everything is Democrats Democrats Democrats with you, isn't it? Sheesh...

Call me crazy...

 

[bobzilla]

Call me crazy...

don't be that guy!

 

[printcraft]

don't be that guy!

Listen pal...

 

[joe138]

Hopefully this motivates voters in those states that are termed "swing states".

 

[MCgrease08]

Yawn.

Will this nonsense just get to the Supreme Court already? This needs to be smacked down hard.

 

[Leadeye]

NFA got it's start because in the 30s what we think of as the NFA was proposed for firearms in general. A lot of arguments were made that congress did not have the power to ban guns, but had the power to tax them. That was further narrowed to machine guns, SBRs, suppressors etc. which were viewed as criminal weapons at the time. $200 was a lot of money in the 30s so leadership figured they had "done something" by restricting items covered by the new NFA to those that could afford it.

Fast forward to the 70s and leadership again sees NFA items becoming a concern again simply because they have devalued the money so much that nearly anybody can afford the $200. Small businesses started up manufacturing new machine guns and giving others a new lease on life by making new transferable receivers and then importing a non transferable military surplus gun and swapping parts. It was great time, and was a lucrative business with a growing market.

You would think that maybe the government would simply raise the tax again, but I think they saw this as a short term solution and wanted a permanent one which they got with the Hughs amendment.

Always remember though through all of these laws and political changes, leadership does not want you to own firearms at all. None, ever.

 

[Ingomike]

Even in the leftist media if they are reporting about an arms dealer getting busted selling Glocks and machine guns to foreign militants don’t they usually call them “small arms” dealers or suppliers?

 

[Tripp11]

Will this nonsense just get to the Supreme Court already?

Feel the same way. There's plenty of similar cases including denying non-violent felons the ability to possess a firearm. I just wish we could speed up the process a bit and have the SC opine on all of these cases.

 

[Ingomike]

Yawn.

Will this nonsense just get to the Supreme Court already? This needs to be smacked down hard.

Ask jack smith to charge Trump with crimes related to this then he can have it expedited to SCOTUS to get Trump before the primary elections…

 

[miguel]

We need to just go and press those buttons on the voting machines so hard in November that we bruise our fingers! That'll show 'em!

 

[random44]

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again until you finally subvert the constitution.

 

[random44]

Always remember though through all of these laws and political changes, leadership does not want you to own firearms at all. None, ever.

That's because it's hard to force people into "re-education camps" if they have the means to resist.

 

[actaeon277]

Wow.
A politician "declares"

Well then, it must be true.
I'm convinced.

 

[Cynical]

Reading this article drive my thinking to where I have a question on the whole concept of “common use” by the courts. Why are machine guns not considered “common use”? Are they not commonly owned and commonly taxed? Are they not as common as they can be since the government banned the sale of new ones?

So the government can declare a gun cannot be sold then gets to ban it because it is not ”common use” because of government restrictions? The government is playing heads I win, tails you lose, kind of game…

Democrat AGs Declare 'Assault Weapons' Aren't Protected by the Second Amendment

bearingarms.com

The thing that stands out to me is “common” use. They are commonly used in 3-gun and who gets to decide what is common. I’m guessing the same bunch who use the term common sense when talking about gun control. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, I will give them credit they are relentless in their pursuit of the agenda. I thought shall not be infringed was common sense. However, maybe their feeble minds don’t know what infringed means

 

[KellyinAvon]

Wow.
A politician "declares"

Well then, it must be true.
I'm convinced.

INGO's KellyinAvon declares Democrat AGs don't know duck-**** from apple butter.