Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
No. Historically, since this country’s founding, private citizens have possessed, at a minimum, the same small arms and light weapons as its police and military.
Not to mention BOTH Heller and Bruen specifically Stated " All Bearable Interments in Common Use ( Which includes all past and present Military Arms Via Historical Text and Traditions of Militia Service Commands)" except dangerous and unusual, which pretty much dooms the state to a big loss!
 
Messages
626
Reactions
319
Not to mention BOTH Heller and Bruen specifically Stated " All Bearable Interments in Common Use ( Which includes all past and present Military Arms Via Historical Text and Traditions of Militia Service Commands)" except dangerous and unusual, which pretty much dooms the state to a big loss!
Cool story bro. If you read the judges argument, hi cap mags are dangerous and unusual.
 
Messages
7,734
Reactions
21,408
Messages
7,161
Reactions
12,005
More details on this article
Man that AG is not too bright. SCOTUS said specifically that courts are not to use a balancing test that weighs so called public good vs. the right of the individual, but that AG is acting like the Bruen ruling never happened. He is just flat wrong on that.

9F0FA243-035C-4479-9ABE-07F7DB99DAEC.jpeg
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
Cool story bro. If you read the judges argument, hi cap mags are dangerous and unusual.
That's Not how it went down BRO! She Asked, and framed her question so that STUPID people like Mark Knudson and his band of Merry Woketards could understand the answer as the LAW REQUIRES! Don't kid yourself, She knows full what Bruen commands her to do, I believe she is paving the way to END this nonsense once and for all, and forcing anti 2nd crap out the window! Watch her carefully, Activist or not, this is a sitting fed judge, her words and actions ring out across the nation, a nation watching this very closely, and if she gets it wrong, she eats it big time from SCOTUS, she gets it right, and this ends NOW, at least until the Nutty 9th takes it up, and they now face the exact same Commands from Bruen!

Say your right for a second, is she really THAT PHUCKIN STUPID? A sitting fed judge with a STANDING COMMAND FROM SCOTUS, or is she really that stupid to risk her entire future, to be laughed at and mocked the rest of her days, to forever have her name tied to the worst ruling ever? IDK!


Or, maybe I'm wrong ( It happened before, t'was a Tuesday in 1986, and I was drunk) and maybe this Judge really is a Swarmy Flaming Idiot who is completely owned by the left, and has absolutely no phucking clue about Guns and the 2nd, I guess it's possible, hell, there are a bunch of other activist judges out there who are totally wrong and willfully ignoring SCOTUS and Bruen, maybe she is one of them!
 
Last Edited:
Messages
11,667
Reactions
23,679
Call me weird but I’m actually rooting it doesn’t get an injunction.

I’d like to see it disbanded as a whole and not picked apart. I’d love to see it make it to SCOTUS as a whole.

I’m still a firm believer in left/progressive democrat retaliation by using the Cloward Piven strategy that was used for welfare. Apply that to the current bubblegumstorm that is BM114. Overload it so it breaks down.

I feel for the thousands of jobs a businesses that hang in the balance, there is no reason for this to happen.
 
Messages
7,161
Reactions
12,005
That's Not how it went down BRO! She Asked, and framed her question so that STUPID people like Mark Knudson and his band of Merry Woketards could understand the answer as the LAW REQUIRES! Don't kid yourself, She knows full what Bruen commands her to do, I believe she is paving the way to END this nonsense once and for all, and forcing anti 2nd crap out the window! Watch her carefully, Activist or not, this is a sitting fed judge, her words and actions ring out across the nation, a nation watching this very closely, and if she gets it wrong, she eats it big time from SCOTUS, she gets it right, and this ends NOW, at least until the Nutty 9th takes it up, and they now face the exact same Commands from Bruen!

Say your right for a second, is she really THAT PHUCKIN STUPID? A sitting fed judge with a STANDING COMMAND FROM SCOTUS, or is she really that stupid to risk her entire future, to be laughed at and mocked the rest of her days, to forever have her name tied to the worst ruling ever? IDK!


Or, maybe I'm wrong ( It happened before, it t'was a Tuesday in 1986, and I was drunk) and maybe this Judge really is a Swarmy Flaming Idiot who is completely owned by the left, and has absolutely no phucking clue about Guns and the 2nd, I guess it's possible, hell, there are a bunch of other activist judges out there who are totally wrong and willfully ignoring SCOTUS and Bruen, maybe she is one of them!
Fwiw I think she is trying to see what are the boundaries post bruen. If you look at all the comments together, especially the straight jacket comment and the police comment, and add that to her testimony from her confirmation hearings, it looks to me that she sees potential for a lot of wiggle room in the Bruen decision. I think she is in alignment with the CA district 9 court in regards to gun control based on what I have seen. Time will tell though. It seems to me all her questions are related to trying to find the boundaries of the bruen decision.
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
Fwiw I think she is trying to see what are the boundaries post bruen. If you look at all the comments together, especially the straight jacket comment and the police comment, and add that to her testimony from her confirmation hearings, it looks to me that she sees potential for a lot of wiggle room in the Bruen decision. I think she is in alignment with the CA district 9 court in regards to gun control based on what I have seen. Time will tell though. It seems to me all her questions are related to trying to find the boundaries of the bruen decision.
That could very well be! I don't deny the part of me sitting on the fence with her, COULD prove her an activist! Testing Bruen is a BAD IDEA in my opinion, but others have tested Bruen already, and are loosing Big Time!

With the Attorney flat out calling her out in open court, informing her that she is wrong, and that Bruen COMMANDS her to act under it's standards, she knows now, if she didn't already, that she is squarely in the spotlight on this, so we will see exactly what she is very soon!
 
Messages
7,161
Reactions
12,005
Fwiw I think she is trying to see what are the boundaries post bruen. If you look at all the comments together, especially the straight jacket comment and the police comment, and add that to her testimony from her confirmation hearings, it looks to me that she sees potential for a lot of wiggle room in the Bruen decision. I think she is in alignment with the CA district 9 court in regards to gun control based on what I have seen. Time will tell though. It seems to me all her questions are related to trying to find the boundaries of the bruen decision.
It is now crystal clear that the judge is in fact trying to find the boundaries of Bruen. In her new 43 page ruling she has outlined to the anti-gunners paths to try to work around Bruen to pass more anti-gun laws.

I think it's likely a lot of this came from the CA 9th circuit who themselves are trying to figure out how to get around the Bruen decision. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of this was written ahead of time by 9th circuit clerks/judges in anticipation of this opportunity to try to neuter Bruen. I also wouldn't be surprised if she has positioned herself to be put on the 9th circuit in the future with this move.

But many of her strategies in the ruling are fundamentally flawed because she relies heavily on balancing societal good vs the individuals 2 A. This is no longer allowed and will not stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny (which I'm sure she knows).

Because of this blatant and obvious direct violation of the SCOTUS Bruen ruling, I can't help thinking that this is in tandem with the 9th circuits' delaying tactics on pending 2A cases. It seems to be a deliberate and strategic step. Seems like they are trying to set the stage so everything is ready when there is a Supreme Court change (when they will be able to re-institute a 2 step "societal good vs individual right balancing"). Perhaps they are doing it in concert with the left's push to increase the number of Supreme Court members?
 
Last Edited:
Messages
1,107
Reactions
989

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:


The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:


The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.


Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:


The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:


The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.


Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
That's all good and fine, Until the State Passes whatever the hell they feel like, regardless of the above, which is WHY we have the courts to determine for us, if it's lawful or not, and there in lies the rub, take the Wet Coast lefties who pass all sorts of Unconstitutnal laws all the time, they don't give a Sh!t what the Constitution says, only what YOU can prove in Court! And even when the Courts say NOPE, the Wet Coast States do it anyway because there are no consequences for lawmakers writing and passing bullsh!t Laws! Then we have the Ultra Leftist Activist Courts who believe it's their right and power to Rule From the Bench, so they rarely ever side with the Constitution, instead, they side with the State who made those bullsh!t Laws!
And don't forget, even our Sheriff's Association stated that this is now settled law weather they like it or agree with it or not, and as voted by the people, will be upheld and enforced as such, until it is challenged in court and ( Hopefully ) struck down, so yea, your screwed by the corrupt system all the way around!
 
Messages
3,562
Reactions
3,478
Let's all remember that the police who shoot only in self defense do not carry multiple standard capacity magazines of about 15 or more rounds each? Geez, it seems that the bad guys can carry standard capacity magazines of 15 or more rounds when it is logical to disadvantage potential victims with a 10 round limit in their magazines. Sounds perfectly logical.
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
Let's all remember that the police who shoot only in self defense do not carry multiple standard capacity magazines of about 15 or more rounds each? Geez, it seems that the bad guys can carry standard capacity magazines of 15 or more rounds when it is logical to disadvantage potential victims with a 10 round limit in their magazines. Sounds perfectly logical.
Here is my argument! Do you own a fire extinguisher? Does your fire extinguisher hold more then half a pound of suppressant? If it can hold 3/4 pound, would you be willing to give up that 1/4 pound for safety, because some jackarse said no one needs a high capacity fire extinguisher!!! Phuck Me, that what we're dealing with here and these loony-tunes!!!
 
Messages
7,161
Reactions
12,005
Oregon State Shooters Association (OSSA) has a M114 update page and it has some good info from the OSSA/NSSF/NRA lawyers. These are the guys, along with National shooting sports foundation (NSSF) and NRA, who have the Bruen winning lawyers on the team.

Their response, shown in the screenshot below, exactly shows what is wrong with judge immergut's ruling and why I say she is purposely thumbing her nose at the Supreme Court (likely with CA 9th circuit's backing and advice). These guys (likely the Beuen lawyers) are exactly right Imo and have the same concerns I had. When the judges ruling on the full suit makes it to SCOTUS these are the arguments that will win imo. Immergut is flat out wrong, and I believe she is doing it very deliberately, to test the boundaries of what they can get through in a post-Bruen USA. The directives from SCOTUS are very clear and she is blatantly ignoring them. That can't be by accident.

307596DC-AB12-41DB-9CD6-A51152AB84CF.jpeg

Here is OSSA's M114 update page FYI.

 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top