Of course, “defending his home,” right?
What could possibly go wrong?
Sounds like smart business. Give the customer a firearm they can’t handle and inevitable you’ll be repairing bullet holes in the roof you just installed! /s
OTOH - they might hurt themselves and you lose a return customer.
Who would deprive this poor citizen of his gun rights? /s
Slate: The Supreme Court’s Big Gun Case Was Humiliating for the Justices
Most of the debate on Tuesday was about the level of generality at which a modern law is supported by “history and tradition.” In Bruen, Thomas wrote that the government must identify a historical “analogue,” but not necessarily a historical “twin.” But both sides, of course, have different views about exactly how close the familial relationship needs to be. In Rahimi, the government argues that a “history and tradition” of disarming “dangerous” people is enough to uphold the law. Rahimi argues that a purported lack of a “history and tradition” of outright bans on gun possession means that the law is unconstitutional, and that the government has no choice but to restore Rahimi’s right to wave a gun around when denied access to fast-food hamburgers of his choice.
This argument is bold, in the same way that Captain Smith’s choice to navigate the Titanic into an iceberg field was bold. The modern concept of protective orders, after all, did not exist at the founding, which makes the absence of laws disarming people subject to protective orders not as dispositive as your average National Rifle Association lifetime member would think. Today’s firearms are also far deadlier than Colonial-era firearms: In about two-thirds of fatal mass shootings between 2014 and 2019, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of domestic violence, according to an amicus brief filed by a gun safety group. In the context of a real-life epidemic of deadly intimate partner violence, the fact that the Framers did not disarm abusers in 1791 does not mean they would not have done so if abusers in 1791 murdered as many people as they do in 2023.
OK, so she had a gun, but it was not capable of killing people. The people did not know that. How is this not terrorism? Is that not the whole idea, to instill fear in furtherance of a political aim?
This is way west of me but my state is really going deeper off the deed end.
This town create a militia because they think they can skirt federally guns laws or any gun laws.
