Has anyone been investigating this new tidbit?
https://youtu.be/Z223IKjaBbs
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Nothing like having the state say, "If you did as we said then, you broke the law! Now do what we say today, or you are breaking the law!"
https://youtu.be/iGdjQ4Iylzo
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Here’s a little more clarification.
https://www.youtube.com/live/DPCkHpWu3Yo?feature=share
That's the SPIRIT!
Some of you will see what I did there.
RIP Rutger. Great scene.
Last edited by StainlessSteelRat; 01-26-23 at 21:30.
Serious question, trying (and mostly failing, 200+ pages is ridiculous) to understand all of this: Assuming the ATF cannot waive a tax that is established by statute, how is the regulatory banning of the braces, which deprives the owners thereof of all the economic value of the item, not a "taking" which requires compensation by the government? Shouldn't ATF be making plans to compensate all brace owners for the value of the now banned items? Particularly since the manufacturers and owners of the items relied upon the ATF's guidance in the past?
Bookmarks