Your quote from U.S. v Miller says otherwise. FYI the courts can rule any legislative act unconstitutionalDumbfuck... H.R. 4926
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your quote from U.S. v Miller says otherwise. FYI the courts can rule any legislative act unconstitutionalDumbfuck... H.R. 4926
Text history tradition says otherwiseSome semiautomatic rifles have been banned before and they can be banned again.
Your quote from U.S. v Miller says otherwise. FYI the courts can rule any legislative act unconstitutional
Plus nearly every merchant ship carried cannons and private warships were common when the Constitution was ratified.Pretty much. The first artillery unit in the US was the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.
A PRIVATE organization.
Dumbfuck miller hasn't been over turned as a matter of fact Buren fortified the ruling. There will never be another unconstitutional assault weapon banDumbfuck...
... in what year was Miller decided?
... in what year was the weapons ban passed?
... now kick yourself in the ass for being such a retard.
Some semiautomatic rifles have been banned before and they can be banned again.
Some semiautomatic rifles have been banned before and they can be banned again.
Dumbfuck miller hasn't been over turned as a matter of fact Buren fortified the ruling. There will never be another unconstitutional assault weapon ban
In violation of US V Miller which you so kindly showed us.
Dumbass.
No one said it was overturned. What is said is that you're too stupid to understand the ruling.
Miller was decided in 1939.
The weapons ban passed in 1994.
Despite multiple legal challenges, the courts upheld the ban, being fully aware of Miller.
LOL
Says you, a dumbfuck. The weapons ban was challenged and the courts upheld it.
Buren is the end of gun controlNo one said it was overturned. What is said is that you're too stupid to understand the ruling.
Miller was decided in 1939.
The weapons ban passed in 1994.
Despite multiple legal challenges, the courts upheld the ban, being fully aware of Miller.
No one said it was overturned. What is said is that you're too stupid to understand the ruling.
Miller was decided in 1939.
The weapons ban passed in 1994.
Despite multiple legal challenges, the courts upheld the ban, being fully aware of Miller.
Not constitutionally. Your belief that if the government violated the Constitution in the past that means it's justified in doing so again isn't good logic. It's the thought process of a thug.Some semiautomatic rifles have been banned before and they can be banned again.
No, it is quite apparent that it is YOU who don't understand the ruling. The fact is not one of the legal challenges to the AW bans referenced Miller.
Not one. If they had, they would have won.
It never went to the Supremes, you dumb ass........
And Separate but Equal was affirmed by the Supreme Court too...you dumb ass...
Not constitutionally. Your belief that if the government violated the Constitution in the past that means it's justified in doing so again isn't good logic. It's the thought process of a thug.
Retard, it would have lost. But I do like your argument -- Conservatives were too stupid to effectively challenge the weapons ban.
wrong, dumbass.Yes, fucking moron, constitutionally.
No, they would have prevailed. You forget the SCOTUS loves them their "precedent". Especially the Progs. They live and die by precedent, so, as usual, you are wrong.