Previous Post
Next Post

“The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is part of U.S. sovereign territory, but it bans handguns, bans importing handguns into the commonwealth and limits possession of any guns by non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents.” Not any more. The US District Court for the Mariana Islands applied the same Second Amendment that applies in the rest of the 57 states and various territories in striking down the nation’s last handgun ban. “The court also strikes down . . .

“the ban on importing handguns, because the ban makes handguns essentially unavailable: ‘In the Commonwealth, the import ban on handguns can only operate as a sales ban on a constitutionally protected product. The import ban on handguns and their ammunition is unconstitutional and violates the Covenant; Defendants will be enjoined from enforcing it.’”

And with that, the last official handgun ban in the US is thrown on the ash heap of history. At least until President Clinton appoints the next Supreme Court judge an the battles resume in full. Never give up…never surrender.

[h/t LB]



Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Yawn. The government kourts are so irrelevant to freedom. It’s still all but impossible to have a revolver or 1911 (most standard capacity semi automatic pistols still being banned) in DC. Northern Mariana will merely play whack a mole in the same way. Maybe, if you can dive down and touch the bottom of the Mariana trench they will let you have a revolver in your house.

    • I don’t know the specific situation in Washington D.C. at the present time with respect to how D.C. interferes with acquiring handguns.

      I am nevertheless concerned in general with the whack-a-mole problem. Legislative bodies can pump out laws that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution faster than we can overturn them in the courts — assuming that we even can overturn them in the courts. (And meanwhile the laws are in effect until the courts overturn them … which can take several years.)

      • It only takes several years the first time. With every new decision, the scope of what can pass narrows down, and if legislatures try to enact laws outside of that established scope, the first court that reviews the case has no choice but to strike the law down.

        • “… and if legislatures try to enact laws outside of that established scope, the first court that reviews the case has no choice but to strike the law down.”

          Hah! In the real world lower courts violate higher court decisions whenever it suits them. And the U.S. Supreme Court only hears cases when it suits them. Reference the recent Second Amendment case where the lower court upheld a ban that clearly conflicts with the Heller decision … because it made people feel better. I think it was the Highland Park, Illinois ban.

        • I don’t subscribe to this line of reasoning. Eat this piece of crap because the alternative is fresher, smellier crap. We are aligning ourselves with a statist without a shred of conservative values and not more than two years of pro gun rights to rub together. Somehow the guy that supported an assault weapons ban, has repeatedly attacked the Constitutional right to free speech, and has promoted violence at every turn is being toted as the only viable option to preserve our freedom? No. I won’t accept that.

        • What politician hasn’t promoted violence to preserve freedom in recent memory? We’ve been at war with someone or other the majority of my life…

        • If the RNC shits on the Repub nomine. I’ll throw in the towel and vote for every democrat in every office everywhere in the country. Instead of averting disaster, embrace it, run what’s left of this country into the ground. I want black people and college students yelling at me from home to work, on freeways and weekends, what a racist white privilege pig I am. Throw rocks, swing bats… better yet shoot and rob me. I’ll sit and take it, hell video and upload it all over the internet. Reach in to my earnings take 80 or 90%, then document as the coin rolls into defense contracts, welfare programs, and illegals so they can work a task complete shit job. Tell me again what a shit bag I am. I’ll go make more coin so they can take more. Then tie me to the whipping post and with great anger beat me for my success, drive my core values from what’s left of my soul. Make me in their image to complete the submission and go claim another.

          Stop prolonging the eventual win of progressive takers.

        • “I don’t subscribe to this line of reasoning. Eat this piece of crap because the alternative is fresher, smellier crap.”

          Libertarians have been saying this very thing to “Conservatives” for awhile in regards to the Statist, GOP tripe, which is herded to the main stage every four years.

          It’s hilarious, now, they’re using on each other in regards to Trump.

          I said it before and I’ll say it again, the R’s and D’s, both, hate the Drumpf, and that’s good enough for me.

        • Chad: In what world is promoting violence against protesters exercising their Constitutional right to free speech and to peaceably assemble preserving freedom? I am not talking about Mr. Trumps stance on various foreign affairs topics, I am specifically talking about his advocation for violence to be taken out against people protesting his rallies and even offering to pay the legal fees of those committing criminal battery. That is not someone who respects freedom, that is not someone that respects Constitutional rights, that is someone that wants to silence the opposition to a degree that is no better than the left.

        • RockOnHellChild: Hatred is not a legitimate reason for support. Both sides of the isle (publicly) hate ISIS and that does not justify our support clearly. Mr. Trump is more statist than any nominee that the Republican party has nominated in 20 years. He openly advocates for the restriction on the Constitutional right to free speech, to peaceably assemble. He has stated his intention to silence opposition in the media (which are far left but still have a right to free speech) he has openly stated his condolence of violence to be taken out on protestors and then to pay the legal fees of those in commission of criminal battery. He has openly supported an assault weapons ban and then has changed his stance in the last couple of years in order to maximize a demographic that is most likely to vote for his extremist politics. He has openly advocated for protectionist economic policy that is sure to undermine the dollar and cripple American competitiveness in the global marketplace.

          So no. Just because the Rs and Ds hate him is not a justification to support him nor is it an excuse to be a low information voter.

        • I love how for a decade all these faux libertarians begged for an anti establishment candidate, that would topple the Bushes of the GOP. Then, he came along… Now all the sudden they’re begging to suck the establishments d*ck.

        • Younggun- Well I’m glad you have dropped your mask and revealed yourself as a moonbat.

          Trump has never advocated violence against what you call “protesters”. They are paid operatives organized by Soros and Sanders. Also free speech “rights” don’t extend to private property, private events, or public spaces when they in fact impede other peoples rights.

          Your “protesters” are a fascist mob. Keep it up and I see hoses, dogs and batons in your future.

        • younggun21,

          In what world does a “protester” have a right to go to an opposing political rally and then proceed to pre-emptively shout and assault the attendees?

          Protesters certainly have a right to display signs and speak their views when someone asks them. They do NOT have a right to disrupt a rally where people have assembled peaceably.

          More specifically, as I understand it, Trump was NOT telling his supporters to assault “protesters”. Rather, he was telling his supporters to defend themselves from physical abuse/attack and to physically remove anyone who was trying to interrupt the rally. That is neither immoral, unethical, nor criminal.

        • Dr. Brainwash: I have never stated that I was a libertarian, Faux or not. Even so, how would someone that advocates on the behalf of protectionist economic policy and the prosecution of publications that disagree with him be a candidate that libertarians would want? Last I checked, libertarians were of the position that free trade was a good thing and free speech was equally applicable to news papers as to people. Just because he isn’t “establishment” doesnt mean that people with a foundation principle have to leave that in the dust just because someone defines him as outside of convention. A communist would be ant establishment too but that doesnt mean that they agree with a libertarian mindset.

        • Mack Boland: I appreciate the ad hominem, however unlike Trump, I can understand your rights to free speech.

          Where is your evidence to support these people are all in cohorts with the likes of Soros? If they are I would love to see that. However, no matter who they are sent by, that does not mean they should be victims of criminal battery does it? Just because I’m sent my a particular person from a rival party doesnt mean that supporters of that movement can commit a crime and get away with it by citing my boss. Have we gotten to the point where assault and battery are excusable so long as you can tie the victim to a particular talk show host? REALLY?

        • Uncommon sense: A protester has a right to go anywhere they please and protest what they want to. Its called freedom of expression and the right to peaceably assemble. If you can cite the facts and relevant evidence that proves that these protesters were in commission of a crime than we would have something to talk about but the way that I see it, someone opposing your political points of view don’t deserve to be beaten. I think some folks did that with bad outcomes in Germany while wearing brown shirts a few generations ago.

          Perhaps they don’t have a right to DISRUPT that rally but again, does that warrant commission of battery? I don’t think so and I don’t think a court of law would think so either. If you can just turn around and beat the hell out of someone because they are “disrupting your event” that would seem a rather large proportion of assault cases have been wrongfully convicted.

          Finally: Mr Trump made the bald faced assertion that people such as a protester should be struck and I quote “Knock the crap out of them” going on to offer to pay their legal fees. Not someone that respects rights.

        • Dr Brainwash: How am I cozying up to the liberals? I believe in freedom of the press. Mr. Trump has publicly stated that he will “Open up those libel laws” in order to silent “negative publications.” How can you seriously be in favor of human rights such as the right to keep and bear arms and think that suing opposing viewpoints is morally consistent?

        • “So no. Just because the Rs and Ds hate him is not a justification to support him nor is it an excuse to be a low information voter.”

          So yeah, this is part where you tout your opinion as the word of God and I do what I want regardless of your opinion.

          Oh, and FYI, I think Trump is helping fracture the GOP, which seems to be working swimmingly. So, that would make my motives consistent with reality, not uninformed.

          But, good job virtue signaling, by saying people who don’t agree with you are “uninformed” and arguing like a Liberal. Are you going to call me inbred redneck, next?

        • younggun21,

          I will try again. As I understand it, the “protester” to which you are referring walked into the midst of Trump’s rally and then started shouting and swinging at people … which means the “protester” was the instigator of violence. Other people attending that rally had every right to defend themselves and remove the instigator.

          Furthermore, the “protester” has no free-speech right to begin shouting at an event where everyone is there to LISTEN to the SPEAKER who ORGANIZED the event. The protester is welcome to quietly hold a sign if they like. What they cannot do is attempt to neutralize the event.

          Again, as I understand it, Trump encouraged his supporters to physically remove the “protester” who was trying to make it impossible for people to hear Trump’s speech and neutralize the speaking event. I don’t see any impropriety in that.

        • RockOnHellChild:

          Look, you can have your opinion I was not and never have stated that my word was the word of God because its not. You plainly stated that the Rs and the Ds hate trump and that is good enough for you to which I pointed out that is faulty reasoning as there are people that everyone hates in Washington that no-one here would be willing to support such as extremist organizations. This is consistent with the facts.

          You are not an inbred redneck, I do not know you and I do not pretend to know you and I never called you uninformed, I stated that there is no “excuse” not to read up on the policies of a person instead to rely on the hatred of others to drive your decision making. Not knowing the policies of an individual would be under definition uninformed but perhaps you know them already, which is why I am not calling you such.

          A candidate fracturing a party into unwindable size is not a good thing. Out of the last 15 polls Mr. Trump is only projected to win to Hillary in one and that is only by two points which is within the margin of error. This is not to hurt feelings, this is just fact. Yes he is fracturing the GOP and that fracturing is resulting in a voter base that cannot compete with the left.

        • younggun21,

          If someone is printing FALSE information about Trump that hurts his reputation, business, and/or political dealings, then he has every right to file libel suits. There is nothing dirty or inappropriate about that and such actions do not suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.

          Remember, Freedom of the Press and Free Speech rights do not protect FALSE speech that damages someone’s reputation or their personal, business, or political dealings.

        • uncommon sense:

          You are correct in that FALSE information can be filed against, but you also have to take into account that Trump is a public figure which means he has to prove ACTUAL MALICE which is very hard to prove in a libel case.

          What Trump is presumably attempting to do, is in his own words “open up the libel laws” to make it easier for public figures like himself, to successfully win lawsuits without the extra burden of actual malice that has been established. This is wrong. This means that all that has to be accomplished by Mr. Trump, is to prove that some wrong information was published NOT that it was published with ACTUAL MALICE which is designed to keep people like politicians from silencing opponents through frivolous lawsuits.

        • Slander, (which is all the media is these days) is not protected by the first amendment. And in the founding fathers time, it could get you shot as someone could legally duel you for spreading damned lies about you. What Trump is proposing to do to the media, is infact a correction of its abuse of the first amendment.

        • Youngguns

          When the only measure of practical difference from Liberals and “Conservatives” are Cons sh*t on the Constitution slightly less and prefer corporate welfare to state welfare, then I know it’s time for something happen or give. One party has to go, otherwise the illusion of choice continues.

          And when the GOP props up Mittens, Rubio, and Jeb! (No last name, like Cher or Bono, nope, no last name whatsoever, so don’t even ask), then I know they are the ones which be easiest to break.

          The Dem are statists and have for a lon time claimed to be so. The Reps lie about be conservative, but are just as statist as the Dems.

          So, the low hanging fruit it is…

        • Younggun About 2 seconds on Google would prove my point. Seriously you should probably get more informed before you defend activist groups like BLM, La Raza, etc. and who their donor class is before you defend them.

          When arguing the rules of the game, you should probably know who the players are. Otherwise you just look foolish.


        • younggun21,

          You are conflating two different events.
          (1) At one event a protester initiated hostilities — he began yelling and throwing punches. In that case Trump encouraged his supporters to defend themselves and remove the “protester” from the rally.
          (2) At another event another protester initiated yelling to stop the rally but did not appear to start throwing punches. Security personnel were escorting that protester out of the venue when a Trump supporter sucker punched the protester on the way out. That was definitely assault and battery. More importantly, I don’t recall seeing any statements from Trump condoning or encouraging what the supporter did to the protester in that case.

          If Trump were telling his supporters to go out and initiate hostilities at peaceful rallies, I would be the first person to jump all over that and condemn such actions. To my knowledge, he has done no such thing. He has encouraged supporters to defend themselves and remove people who disrupt his speeches. That is the extent of it.

        • Dr Brainwash: Slander is not relevant here. As I have already discussed above, the issue would be LIBEL opposed to slander. The case in Libel law would hold that the donald would have to prove actual malice in a case in order to win a lawsuit against a publication per his status as a public figure. Look up the case law. Yes it is illegal to print knowingly false information but in the case of public figures this standard is higher because they are in the public light and their day to day activities are what is know in lawspeak as “newsworthy” and therefore requires a higher burden of proof. Just a clarification.

        • RockOnHellChild:

          You have now on two separate occasions decried the “statism” of both Rs and Ds yet you are jumping to the defense of a man that embodies the statist position more than anyone in this election (other than hillary). If you really hate statists than you would be supporting Cruz or Rand Paul (even though he is out by now.) Trump has come out in favor of protectionist economic policy that is wholly statist in nature and ruins economic competitiveness on the global scale. That is statism at its finest.

        • Mack Boland:

          You clearly conflate my defense of an individuals right to speak as a defense of what that group stands for. No I do not defend the messages sent out by any of the groups that you have listed BUT I will fight to the death for their right to speak their minds however wrong they might be. If they are protesting an event they should be escorted out of the venue by security personnel not sucker punched or any other type of battery unless in self defense.

          We are a community committed to the armed SELF DEFENSE of ourselves and our loved ones. It is more than disheartening to see so many on here that are completely fine with violence done to people they disagree with with little to no provocation.

        • uncommon sense:

          1) If the man was throwing punches that did not land, that is assault under the definition of the law and the trump supporters should have filed a lawsuit and were within their rights to defend themselves from bodily harm until proper authorities arrived to remove them. HOWEVER, no such evidence has come to light that this was the case and no lawsuits were filed nor any police reports filed so with the evidence that we have we are going to have to call a spade a spade but I’m willing and open to see more evidence.

          2) In this case, Mr. Trump publicly stated that he would look into the event in order to determine if the man deserved to have his legal bills payed for in the sucker punch event. Granted, this is not condoning nor is this making any promise or pledge to do anything it is simply looking at the event which there is nothing wrong with. However, this is the type of scene and this is the type of image Mr.Trump is gaining and I do not in any way want the gun rights movement associated with that. That is not who we are, we do not initiate violence we are here to defend ourselves from that violence and being conflated and grouped together with an image like this is not beneficial to our movement and the growing of our ranks in the future.

          Whether we like it or not, more violence has taken place in this election cycle at rallies than any in recent memory and there is something to be said about that. What I am saying is that this is a “brand” if you will that we do not want to be associated with no matter where the fault lies. Mr. Trump has not condemned any of the beatings and being silent is to condone in the case of publicity. Mr. Trumps own campaign manager has been charged with battery as well and there is a video out now of him bruising a journalist.

          The ties here are undeniable, whether it is Mr. Trumps fault or not, there is a culture of violence that we should not morally align ourselves with for we are in a culture war. One that will not and can not, be won by throwing punches at campaign rallies we must win through rational argument, not brutality.

        • Protesters have no freedom of speech rights in Trump events, because they’re private venues. But that doesn’t mean that it’s permissible to physically assault them, which has happened time and again in Trump rallies (and physical force was not instigated by protesters in vast majority of cases). And which Trump has not-so-subtly encouraged by talking about how “they’d be carried out on a stretcher” in the “good old times”, or how he’d “like to punch him in the face” etc.

        • int19h:

          I have already conceded this. HOWEVER, I have also stated that the proper course of action is to escort the individuals out of the venue not to sucker punch them or engage in battery. If someone decides to start screaming in the middle of a screening of a movie in protest of that movie, that movie theater has the right to remove that person from the venue. What they do not have the right to do is to tell their patrons that they should “knock the crap out of them” that is called assault and battery and it is not lawful.

        • It was a reply to other guys in this thread, not to you. I don’t have any disagreement with what you’ve said.

          WordPress has this ridiculous limitation where “Reply” links don’t appear in the web interface when comment nesting is this deep, so unless you’re already subscribed to notifications about new comments on a story (said notifications always have a “Reply” link), you have to respond to the first comment up the chain that has it – which was yours.

        • I am not certain that jumping up and down and screaming mindless chants over and over counts as “free speech” for more than 10-15 seconds before it clearly becomes deliberately denying someone else his right to free speech.

        • LarryinTX:

          This is besides the point. We have already established that a rally held inside of a private venue has the discretion to remove those that are disruptive, you have no rights to protest on private property. HOWEVER, you do not have the right to commit criminal battery in response to someone being disruptive at a rally. You can boo them, you can yell back at them, you can even have the venue security escort them out of the arena but you CANNOT sucker punch people who are not threatening you with grievous bodily harm. This is what I object to and this has been the case at trump rallies from those that attend, all the way up to the campaign manager who has now been served with an accusation for simple battery on a reporter with video.

          This is inexcusable and this is not what represents the gun rights movements, hence my original point that we should not be associating ourselves with someone that does not represent our values as peaceful people advocating for less government control.

      • There’s a chance.

        But what is more likely is a contested convention. The Grand Old [Statist] Party will take the nomination from Trump, forcing him to run as a third party. Which if he does will, hopefully, fracture the GOP to its foundation.

        And I will be gitty as a school girl from it. It would be nice to have some reasonable chance for, you know, an actual conservative to make it into office.

        When the R’s tout Rubio, Mittens, and Jeb! (better not mention his last name or blood will fall from the sky and babies will thrown from cliffs), then you know it’s time for the GOP to go the way of the dodo.

        • RockOnHellChild,

          The Republican Establishment today is basically 1950s Democrats.

          For that reason I refer to Republican Establishment politicians as Democrat Light politicians.

        • When people are coming out in mass to vote for for Trump and Cruz, it makes me at least hopeful that peope are finally waking up the the two party BS false choice.

          I would say the same for all the Bernie supporters, but most who I’ve met, (not all, but most) just seem to want “free” sh*t. Which makes means the left isn’t ready for a paradigm shift, so much as doesn’t understand the difference between free and tax payer funded – yay, public school!

        • RockOn – There is STILL one conservative in the race. Cruz. Trump has not won it and I doubt he gets the # needed. An open convention can go ANYWHERE. The damn RINOs aren’t going to go out quietly but their time has passed.

          The demtards have as big if not bigger problems than the RINOs. I’ve said for 8yrs that Hillary will never be the dem nominee. If she continues to fail she Crazy Bernie is going to peel off the pledged as bought/paidfor delegates and then she is toast. As nominee and will be going to jail. I don’t think many realize hope full on marxist batsheet crazy the mainstream dem party actually is. (see also the true Obumer with his most extreme wacko beliefs.

        • I love how people think if we just ‘break the Republicans’ all the Romneys and Boehners will commit seppuku or disappear (or be disappeared). Hate to speak reality at you, but they’ll still be there, and we’ll still have to work with them. Breaking the party will do nothing but ensure democrat dominance for generations. Liberal or conservative or libertarian, at least the Republicans aren’t actively seeking our guns at this time. No one’s getting purged, you’re just screwing your odds of keeping congress and getting the White House. But hey, breaking shit & hurting people is fun, right? Too bad it’s unproductive to burn & loot your own neighborhood (why aren’t you this passionate about sundering the Dem party now that they are so weak as to have Clinton & Sanders to choose from?)

          What’s really funny is despite the rumors being ‘totally bogus’ the Don is literally seeking to destroy the Republican party & guarantee Hillary a win; just like we’ve been saying since the beginning. Oh, but he says he’ll beat her (despite the consistent polls) so that’s different. Morons.

        • Four months ago, all the polls and all the pundits agreed that Trump would not make it past the first primary, and we’re still concerned with what the polls and pundits say? How about we try listening to the voters for a change? Not through a poll, through a VOTE! Cruz is another politician, will fill the role just like a politician, and be beholden to supporters and contributors just like all the other politicians, 4 years later absolutely NOTHING will have changed.

      • I don’t like Trump myself. But what I see happening all around is that people are tired of the same old R and D. Folks want to shake the old fogeys up.

        If the gop steals the nomination from Trump and he runs independent it will draw folks from both parties to him. We will have, in effect, a 3rd party which pisses off folks like the greens and libetarians who’ve struggled for decades and can’t manage to get viable..

        I think is’s funny as hell, myself. And yes, if it comes to hildabeast and the donald I’ll vote Trump.

        • It’s just an opinion (though based on polls) but I don’t think we’re quite at “Donald Trump” territory yet. Though we’re close! So if the republicans had managed to nominate someone who had some Donald traits without going full Donald I think it would have been a blowout.

          You know, someone who knows anything about foreign policy, for example.

        • That’s about where I’m coming from.

          In a contest between “Oh, SHIT!!” and “Hell. NO!” you pretty much have to go with “Oh, SHIT!!”

        • I don’t trust polls. Somebody pays for them and I think they’re as unbiased as the msm. I’m in the san francisco bay area. Liberal central. And I hear people talking about bernie and trump. Even in Berkeley I have yet to see a single hildabeast sign or sticker.

          My gut tells me this is going to be a heart breaking election for the dems and the gop.

        • “My gut tells me this is going to be a heart breaking election for the dems and the gop.”

          jwm, I agree.

          For *decades* the GOP has wondered how they could ever get the blue-collar dems to vote for them.

          Then, guess what? Holy, crap! Here’s someone who the blue-collar class is voting for in the *MILLIONS*.

          You’d think they would be ecstatic over the new voters swelling their ranks!

          The only good thing is, they have no interest in what the Democrat party in general wants to sell them.

          WAKE THE FVCK UP, GOP!

          *WELCOME* THEM!

        • >> For *decades* the GOP has wondered how they could ever get the blue-collar dems to vote for them. Then, guess what? Holy, crap! Here’s someone who the blue-collar class is voting for in the *MILLIONS*. You’d think they would be ecstatic over the new voters swelling their ranks!

          The only problem is that all these blue collar workers don’t care about 80% of what defined the party platform to date, at least nominally. You know, that whole “small government” thing, low taxes on corporations, free trade etc.

          They want big government – the one that provides benefits to them, rather than someone else, sure – but big. They want authoritarian government – the one that gets rid of the undesirables, by violence if necessary.

          If GOP embraces that crowd for the sake of getting votes, it stops being a conservative party, it’s as simple as that.

  2. From sea to shining sea. But in all seriousness, we should not rely on the courts of our federal government to be the last defense on our civil rights. We have a big gaping open seat in the highest Court in the land to fill and the first female president in our nation looming on the horizon to fill that seat with an anti freedom cog to pass her agenda through.

    • Best known to Americans by one island’s former name, Saipan. These days it’s a magical place where migrant workers can sew your Levi’s for 50 cents a day with no possibility of ever achieving citizenship, and stamp them MADE IN USA.

      • Incorrect. CNMI has been under federal immigration laws since 2009 and they are no longer exempt from FLSA (including minimum wage).

  3. In the US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico there’s no “ban”, but good luck trying to get what you want through the absurd coupon system they have (most of which isn’t even enshrined in written law, it’s just police department policy run amuck).

    The next step for territories will be eliminating bureaucracy so people can actually use their rights. Then maybe the crime rates will drop to pre-ban levels.

  4. Ummmm,

    American Samoa has a handgun ban and a ban on all rifles except for .22’s

    You may want to fix the headline.

    • Jared,

      This ruling applies to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands … of which American Samoa is not a member. Thus the title is accurate.

      Note: while American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island are both in the Pacific Ocean, they are something like 3,600 miles apart.

      • Uncommon_sense,

        I’m well aware. I was one of the two people who got the CNMI case going, and combed over all the Insular Cases in order to prepare for this lawsuit.

        The title of the article said the last handgun ban has been struck down. Again, that is not correct. American Samoa has had a handgun ban since around 1990 and they also have a ban on all rifles except .22’s.

        Since American Samoa is a U.S. Territory, there is still one territory left with a handgun ban.

  5. Mack Boland: I appreciate the ad hominem, however unlike Trump, I can understand your rights to free speech.

    Where is your evidence to support these people are all in cohorts with the likes of Soros? If they are I would love to see that. However, no matter who they are sent by, that does not mean they should be victims of criminal battery does it? Just because I’m sent my a particular person from a rival party doesnt mean that supporters of that movement can commit a crime and get away with it by citing my boss. Have we gotten to the point where assault and battery are excusable so long as you can tie the victim to a particular talk show host? REALLY?

  6. Are we still running with the glen beck “if my candidate doesn’t win, it’s ULTIMATE DOOM™ for the country!” trope here? Come for the guns, stay for the laughs, I guess.

    • He’s either making fun of Obama’s flub several years ago…

      Or he’s asserting that there are 57 states + various territories, total. That seemed like the best possibility to me, until I remembered something. The problem is, there are only six non-states, not seven: DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Samoa.

      So he’s poking fun at 0bola.

  7. Fuck I was trying to read all of these comments, because often its worth it, then half way through I scrolled to the bottom and wished “Man, I wish I could be shooting my PTR91 right now.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here