The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, on April 17, held that Massachusetts law banning the sale, transfer, or possession of an assault weapon is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, sending a clear message to Americans that the Boston-based kangaroo court is either illiterate, corrupt, or just unforgivably stupid.
I’ll be honest here, my ability to suffer foolishness kindly on this matter has permanently expired, so if you aren’t a fan of name-calling and my propensity for the abrasive truth, then this one may not be for you.
Massachusetts resident, Joseph Capen, brought the case, announcing his plan to purchase items restricted by the infringement for the lawful purpose of self-defense, but a three blind mice panel of subversive activist judges who wouldn’t know a natural right from ringworm performed just the right amount of mental gymnastics necessary to return with a ruling so heavily steeped in treason that I’m offended by their citizenship status alone, much less their seat on a bench.
Comrade Judge Gary Katzmann, whom I definitely wouldn’t let babysit my children, wrote for the three-traitor panel that the “court” needed to consider whether the law was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which would make it allowable under the Second Amendment.
To be fair, Katzmann and his cronies would have found it consistent with a bowl of cereal if doing so properly served his anti-American agenda, and that is about as plausible as the panel’s holding that the ban on AR-15s, the most common sporting rifle in America, does not unduly burden civilian self-defense.
The court was so disingenuous in its ruling that it claimed Capen and additional appellants failed to show any instance in which these models had ever been used for self-defense, an asinine finding that any search engine could refute in seconds with days and weeks of reading material.
Katzmann embarrassingly attempted to correlate a longstanding tradition of regulation with the outright banning of “specific weapons once it became clear that they posed a unique danger to public safety, including mass deaths and violent crime unrelated to self-defense.” However, no such longstanding tradition exists, with the mental gymnastics here contributing mostly to a sad perversion of the Bruen decision, for which the Supreme Court is likely to tuck tail and expose its lack of spine.
In fact, even machine guns are not banned outright. But Katzmann and his ilk of treasonous judicial activists never burden themselves with obstacles like honesty, integrity, or their oath to America and the Constitution. Why let any of that get in the way of the internal insurrectionist agenda?
Katzmann and his merry band of idiots also claimed the ruling was not inconsistent with Heller, noting that the Second Amendment right was not unlimited and did not pertain to weapons “designed for military use.”
While this take is genuinely not unique by any standard, it has also been debunked since, well, the beginning, as the Second Amendment clearly states in plain English, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A “well-regulated militia,” by definition, refers to a body of citizens trained and equipped to serve in a military capacity, ensuring the security of a free state, the Founding principle behind the Second Amendment.
Here’s a note to Katzmann and all the activist judicial traitors out there. If I can disprove you that easily, your children should be embarrassed by your legacy. There is very little I find more disgraceful than the absolute irreverence for your oath and obligation to the American people while you work to weaken the United States of America and poison our founding values from the inside.
Throughout history, many theories have been propounded as to the black robes worn by judges. Some say they provide a symbol of the authority and power conferred by the state, while others suggest they foster uniformity and promote the concept that justice remains blind. Judges like Katzmann and his First Circuit cohorts, however, bring modern clarity to the garb, as it seems the real symbolism behind the black robe is the death and mourning of our Constitution.
No, the Boston court, government etc are communists.
Yes and the Boston court is the orifice from which much waste(feces) flows.
No, they’re afraid of guns.
I have a single question based on two parts for these three so-called justices.
What does (shall not) mean in a legal document, and to whom does shall not apply?
Yes, good question. But consider this one as well:
Define “fringe” (the edge or perimeter of something). So if a command from The People to Government concisely and clearly states there shall be no action to Infringe upon an enumerated right, does that or does that not specifically mean do not approach, encroach upon, or hinder even the argumentative edge of that right?
In the bill of rights, “shall not” applies to the Government. The Bill of Rights is basically a list of things the Government may not do to citizen.
Let’s just hope the Right to Breathe Shall Not Be Infringed ever becomes a constitutional right.
It is time that when a Judge’s decision is overturned by a higher court. They should be barred from further court appearances until they appear before the Senate and explain what precedence (that’s how Common Law is decided) they utilized in their decision. If it is a Federal or Lifetime judge. They will be temporarily suspended and replaced by a judge appointed by the Senate until their hearing is property completed.
Tempting. Probably not workable.
Hope they don’t check my safe. I might have to do something really unconstitutional.
Whew boy, here we go again. The Second Amendment[supposedly] protects Our Right to posses weapons of war equal to or superior to any standing Army.
Fck Judge Says.
BTW-
Green black walnut husk rubbed on a ringworm is better then anything you can buy over the counter.
Don’t over do it though or your hide will peel.
Interesting 🙂 Thanks for your update on the Ringworm, I will attempt to remember that although that becomes more difficult with the passing of time.
Hell of a good write up there Darwin.
🎯
Same rulings in Washington state. 24.4 million AR15’s in citizens possession in the USA, so how is this not a “Common Use” firearm. Communist judges that are totally uneducated in firearms making rulings that they believe is not an infringement!
When it comes to the courts never attribute malice to ignorance. These judges know how they’ll rule well before court is in session.
Stop with the in common use nonsense.
Where is the citizens Militia, that our Constitution allows, going to be when only the armies of governments are armed with phase plasma rifles.
Freedom does not come from the bench of Judges.
No, they’re afraid of guns.
In my opinion “in common use” should include the military.
Why can’t the supreme court start sanctioning these lower courts for their ineptitude and lack of judicial process that follows their judgments? They should start Charging them a Fine for not doing their jobs properly. They could also decertify the entire court for defying the law.
There are some serious potential pitfalls there. How about if Harris won in 2024 and whoever ran the Harris admin (assuming it would be like it was for the Biden admin, who knows) moved to stack the SCOTUS?
I think that both sides, if they had the least bit of foresight, would realize that stacking the court would devolve quickly into a big mess. Think about it. Devilcrats add 6 judges so that they have a majority of 15. Then GOP add 10 judges so that we would have a majority of 25. Repeat a few times, and in short order, we would be ruled by an unelected judicial politburo with lifetime appointments.
Only potential upside is that there would be no more need for congress, so huge amounts of corruption expenses could be avoided.
Let’s include heavy sanctions for executive and legislative bodies and their legal chiefs (AGs, DAs, SAs) that knowingly pass/deem/adopt laws that are obviously in direct conflict with a superior court involving Constitutional Rights.
Why won’t they take a stand and enforce their own rulings? Because they have no testicular fortitude.
Female judges have no testicles, they’re afraid of guns.
So the judge is saying Gun Control an agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide is Constitutional…Right.
Yep. The Constitution simply means whatever the Judicial Branch says it does.
In Massachusetts no less. Time for a 250 year repeat of the shot heard round the world. Still got the commie red coats🙄Is tar & feathers still a thing?
Suggesting heads on pikes around the DC Reflecting Pool……
Time to see how similar this was to the west coast decision and double check the status of the SAFE act challenge. I would imagine they are trying to be careful in how different they make each law/decision to reduce sweeping dismissal potential later. As to the rest what do you expect of commies they don’t care about your feelings just power and control.
Was there ANY legal representation for the Constitution in this? Clearly violates Heller and Bruen
If you think that this Circuit panel decision is bad, and actually a few others, wait until they all do it……..and the Supreme Court does nothing. No need really for the evil Dems to worry about packing the Supreme Court when they steal power again. I obviously hope I’m very wrong!
“useful for self-defense” is not as part of the test under Bruen or Heller.
Mark,
Wait until they realize life preservers and fire extinguishers don’t fall under Constitutional protection. Better start shopping now.
I have posted this before and I will post it again: when it comes to an “assault weapons” ban every single one will always be upheld as constitutional 100% of the time in every court. There are two reasons: one it would set a precedent that gun bands are unconstitutional and they don’t want to rock the boat and most courts and two judges are vehemently anti gun and literally want all guns banned, all guns confiscated and every single gun owner in the country exterminated. Along with the entire population of the United States in a home with a gun.
I’m of the opinion that at least 80% of all judges in the United States would fully support the use of nuclear weapons to exterminate all gun owners if all guns were banned and people reacted accordingly. This viewpoint is also shared by 98% of the Democrat party.
Well Said!
So so tired of these anti-American corrupt judges. I’m hoping I live long enough to see this reversed.
“. . . .sending a clear message to Americans that the Boston-based kangaroo court is either illiterate, corrupt, or just unforgivably stupid.”
Never ascribe stupidity to that which is more easily, and inescapably, explained as evil intent.
I was in Massachusetts once visiting a friend who happens to live on 500 acres out in the country–15 years ago. We were firing my 7mm Rem Mag safely on his property into the side of a large hill–bolt action, no rapid fire just a few shots. To my surprise, a convertible pulled up and the guy proceeded to demand that we stop firing the weapon into the hill. When I asked him why he said it was scaring his children. Keep in mind that his house was far so far away you couldn’t see it. My friend who lives there is now a liberal–basically a communist. We are still friends but that state is hopelessly lost like many in the Northeast.
All three shoulb be hanged as examples.
It’s just an attempt to effectively disarm Americans. Same group want non citizens to vote to establish a totalitarian government to force people take shots they order etc. Where seem the enthusiasm of there ATF to go after citizens while gangs grow. Their desire is that if they can get back in power is to have agencies with “assault” guns and citizens to have low capacity slow firing weapons.
Te thing is if mass shooting the metric for gun control and banning “assault” weapons to “save lives” “save children” then per actual data assault weapons are used by cowards to kill %21-24. So it’s actually the safest weapon and per their own logic should be the only forearm people should have.
Because we have 2nd Amendment rights and a well-regulated militia, we have not had a war on our borders in over 100 Years(Mexican Border War), unless you consider the flood of immigrants during the sleepy Joe administration an attack.
Some day, when our borders are attacked because the left has made personal protection and therefore the protection of our nation illegal, we will be attacked by another country or a terrorist organization. Just look at Isreal, they ban nearly all guns in citizens’ hands and they have pretty much been at war for 70 years.
“. . . .a ruling so heavily steeped in treason”
Uuuhhhh, uuuummmm, like, you know. . . .
“Article III Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
A formal enemy of the US is required when the word “treason” is invoked. Individuals have no constitutional authority to declare that an “enemy” is levying war against the US.
Not that the Constitution matters so much, any more.
Boston-based kangaroo court is either illiterate, corrupt, or just unforgivably stupid. How about all of the above. Democrats are a pox on America.
Again, they’re afraid of guns.