“Ban Assault Weapons NOW initiative” — shot down by Supreme Court
Results 1 to 3 of 3
 
  1. #1
    Senior Member LEO Affairs Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    450

    Lightbulb “Ban Assault Weapons NOW initiative” — shot down by Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by “Dara Kam”
    The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to ban possession of semi-automatic weapons does not meet legal requirements. The Court noted that the proposed constitutional amendment reads:

    • “If an individual registers and attests to lawful possession of an assault weapon, and then lends, gifts, or leaves in a will that assault weapon to a family member or friend, then that family member or friend would [instantly] be in criminal violation of the initiative --- a felony offense.”

    An attorney for Ban Assault Weapons NOW, Jon Mills, argued that: “possession is the continual issue.”
    Full story:
    https://www.mysuncoast.com/2020/06/0...t-weapons-ban/
    Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault. It must speak, and speak immediately, while the echoes of wonder, the claims of triumph and the signs of horror are still in the air.

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dara Kam View Post
    The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to ban possession of semi-automatic weapons does not meet legal requirements. The Court noted that the proposed constitutional amendment reads:
    • “If an individual registers and attests to lawful possession of an assault weapon, and then lends, gifts, or leaves in a will that assault weapon to a family member or friend, then that family member or friend would [instantly] be in criminal violation of the initiative --- a felony offense.”

    An attorney for Ban Assault Weapons NOW, Jon Mills, argued that: “possession is the continual issue.”

    Full story:
    https://www.mysuncoast.com/2020/06/0...t-weapons-ban/
    In 1776 the English king said to the colonists: "You can trust me because I am the king."
    In 1939 Adolf Hitler said to the German people: "You can trust me because I am 'der fuhrer'."
    In 2020 Nancy Pelosi said to Democrats: "You can trust me because I'm from the government."

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Question In 1776, the Second Amendment authorized citizens to own military grade weapons. Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    In 1776 the English king said to the colonists: "You can trust me because I am the king."
    In 1939 Adolf Hitler said to the German people: "You can trust me because I am 'der fuhrer'."
    In 2020 Nancy Pelosi said to Democrats: "You can trust me because I'm from the government."
    When the Second Amendment was written by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, it authorized citizens to carry military grade weapons. That raises two important questions:
    1. Why did the framers of the Constitution authorize citizens to possess military grade weapons? This is the most important question.
    2. Why does the Democratic Party want to disarm Americans from their AR-15 rifles?

    In the midst of last weeks nationwide riots, the Democratic Party presented multiple "demands" to include:
    • Ordering officers to "stand down" during the riots.
    • A push to "defund police departments."
    • A smaller push to disarm officers.

    What benefit is there in disarming "law-abiding citizens" from their AR-15 rifles?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •