Page 3 of 3
Re: Today is "Australia has banned guns and don't have shoot
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:51 am
by 133743Hokie
ip_law-hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:USN_Hokie wrote:
Not sure I understand what you are trying to argue.
The right wing has instilled the notion that AR-15s, bump stocks and other barbaric excrement is protected by the Second Amendment when they often are not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What? AR-15s are protected
Nope.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/as ... es-n724106
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So an appeals court for a ruling in MD means they aren't protected? Tell me you have more than that.
Just a case directly on point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A narrow case from Maryland that has just gotten to the appeals court. Considering that they are still for sale, I hope you don't mind that I'm not gonna hang my hat on that being the definitive answer re constitutionality.
Re: Today is "Australia has banned guns and don't have shoot
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:56 am
by ip_law-hokie
133743Hokie wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:
The right wing has instilled the notion that AR-15s, bump stocks and other barbaric excrement is protected by the Second Amendment when they often are not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What? AR-15s are protected
Nope.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/as ... es-n724106
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So an appeals court for a ruling in MD means they aren't protected? Tell me you have more than that.
Just a case directly on point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A narrow case from Maryland that has just gotten to the appeals court. Considering that they are still for sale, I hope you don't mind that I'm not gonna hang my hat on that being the definitive answer re constitutionality.
It’s OK to admit that you were wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Today is "Australia has banned guns and don't have shoot
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:35 am
by 133743Hokie
ip_law-hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:
So an appeals court for a ruling in MD means they aren't protected? Tell me you have more than that.
Just a case directly on point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A narrow case from Maryland that has just gotten to the appeals court. Considering that they are still for sale, I hope you don't mind that I'm not gonna hang my hat on that being the definitive answer re constitutionality.
It’s OK to admit that you were wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do, when i am. How about you (as we scroll thru several current threads!)?
Today is "Australia has banned guns and don't have shootings
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:50 am
by ip_law-hokie
133743Hokie wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:
So an appeals court for a ruling in MD means they aren't protected? Tell me you have more than that.
Just a case directly on point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A narrow case from Maryland that has just gotten to the appeals court. Considering that they are still for sale, I hope you don't mind that I'm not gonna hang my hat on that being the definitive answer re constitutionality.
It’s OK to admit that you were wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do, when i am. How about you (as we scroll thru several current threads!)?
You’ve made so many objectively inaccurate statements contained in this thread alone, I wouldn’t be talking.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk