The Seventh Circuit Rules for Illinois AR-15 Assault Ban

Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit voted 2-1 to overturn an injunction against Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban.  The panel declared that AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment in overturning the preliminary injunction win in Barnett v. Raoul by U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn. The case could set up a major test for gun rights for the United States Supreme Court.

Notably, the majority was composed of conservative judge Frank Easterbook and liberal judge Diane P. Wood. Conservative judge Michael P. Brennan dissented.

The majority stressed that in Heller the Supreme Court held, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” They further noted that the court has previously found that machine guns are not protected under the Second Amendment because they were not “bearable” arms under the Second Amendment.

While gun rights advocates have stressed the similarities with other clearly protected weapons, Easterbrook and Wood stressed the  similarities  between AR-15s and M16s:

The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” (as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas event had done) or auto-sear to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon. In a decision addressing a ban on bump stocks enacted by the Maryland legislature, another federal court found that bump-stock devices enable “rates of fire between 400 to 800 rounds per minute.”

In an analysis that will likely be challenged by gun rights advocates, they stressed that the guns use the same ammunition and “deliver the same kinetic energy.” The kinetic energy used in AR-15s are also analogous to clearly protected weapons.

President Biden has repeatedly made another argument on velocity that has been challenged in these comparisons. A June 30 Field & Stream column on the “Five Fastest Rifle Cartridges”  listed the feet per second (fps) the five fastest rifle cartridges:

  1. .220 Swift — A 40-Grain .220 Swift round moves approximately 4,300 fps.

  2. .257 Weatherby Magnum — An 87-Grain .257 Weatherby Magnum round moves approximately 3,700+ fps.

  3. .30/378 Weatherby — An 165-Grain .30/378 Weatherby round moves approximately 3,400+ fps.

  4. .224 Clark — An 80-Grain .224 Clark round moves approximately 3,500+ fps.

  5. .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer — A 50-Grain .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer round moves approximately 4,600 fps.

AR-15 rounds move at approximately 2,700 – 3,100 fps. Even handgun bullets can reportedly reach around 2,000 fps (though that is rare).

Even the Washington Post has called Biden’s repeated velocity claim “bungled” and factually incorrect. An AR-15 round, at 100 yards, is only slightly faster than most hunting rifles.  However, when measured at the point of the departure from the barrel (as is commonly used on velocity), it is about twice the speed of a common hand gun. It is not the fastest (let alone five times faster) than other guns.

Judge Brennan’s dissent focused not on Heller but Bruen from 2022.  He stressed the historical analysis used by the court and wrote that “because the banned firearms and magazines warrant constitutional protection, and the government parties have failed to meet their burden to show that their bans are part of the history and tradition of firearms regulation, preliminary injunctions are justified against enforcement of the challenged laws.”

Notably, the Supreme Court just took two new cases touching on the Second Amendment. National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo concerns free speech over companies doing business with a controversial speaker.  The case involves the blacklisting of the National Rifle Association in New York.

The second case, Garland v. Cargill, considers whether a bump stock device is a “machine gun” as defined in federal law.

Here is the AR-15 decision: Seventh Circuit Opinion


218 thoughts on “The Seventh Circuit Rules for Illinois AR-15 Assault Ban”

  1. This should be an easy case. The US does not have a long and established history of allowing AR-15 and similar guns to be owned without regulation.

    1. that is a stupid reply. The US does not have a long and established hisotry of allowing ownership of the Sig Sauer P226 seeing as how it’s relatively new. So you want only black powder muskets to prevent usurpations of the governmemt? I have an idea.. PROSECUTE LAW BREAKERS INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING PLEA BARGAINS.

    2. Then this should be an EZ bet for you. I have $1000 against your $1000 to your or my charity that this gets tossed by the Supreme Court… Easy case…easy bet, right pal??

  2. Turley,
    I wouldn’t call Easterbrook conservative when it comes to gun rules.
    He’s a bit of a maroon and is on ACB’s radar.

    The drivel that Madigan wrote in McDonald vs. City of Chicago was approved by Easterbrook but then smacked down hard by SCOTUS.

    Here, the focus on the similarities between an AR-15 and an M-16 is also a joke.

    Free clue. I can also buy a bolt action rifle in .223 Rem / 5.56 NATO / .223 Wylde which are all roughly the same round. (There are slight differences but not enough to make a difference. Here you’re shooting the same round out of a bolt action as you are from a semi-auto and a select fire rifle.

    Also in terms of ballistics the round is not some massively over powered killing machine. In most states its too light of a round to go deer hunting.

    Both of my bolt action rifles fire much large rounds faster and longer w more stopping power. (700RemMag and .300WinMag) and there are many more high powered hunting calibers out there that throw a much larger round faster and with more energy than those rifles. There are also more efficient rounds like the 6.5CM and 6CM.

    The fact that two of the gun grabbing activist judges heard the case, sends this to SCOTUS where the AWB (PICA) law will be struck down.
    Going back to Heller, the AR platform is the most popular rifle out there.

    The other issue… El Fatzo knows this.
    The goal is to get those who currently own banned rifles to register them.
    This too is something you should write about.


      1. @Oldman,

        Good question…
        If memory serves, this is the injunction ruling and not the underlying case. However if the injunction is held to be valid… that is the end of the case.

        I suspect El Fatzo wants it to go en banc. But it would be better if ACB took it up.

        If it goes en banc and it gets upheld… its a further delaying tactic which is the whole point of PICA to harass legal gun owners and gun shops. BTW, if the gun store goes under… the BATF gets their paperwork which becomes in part a gun registration database.

        If it goes en banc and it gets shot down… then all of the other states with similar laws are in place until their lawsuits are heard. Again here if could also get shot down before going to SCOTUS.

        If it went to SCOTUS… then IMHO the injunction is going to hold and then all of the AWB laws that were created will be shut down.
        That’s our best bet.

        As is, the AWB law fails the ‘common use’ sniff test.
        They know it… they also know that the registration will be mandatory before the case is heard and shut down.
        Unless ACB steps in with some sort of emergency action… the registration has to occur before 1/1/24 so that unless you can store your affected guns outside of IL… you will be committing a felony if you don’t register them. (Which is another issue Turley could write about.)


  3. Put another way:

    The “Bush Preemption Doctrine” was illegal under the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter and supreme law of the United States]. Federal laws are required to circumscribe the U.S. Constitution.

    Reminder: no crime, no terrorism and no wrongdoing was required for your 4th Amendment rights to be violated under the BPD.

    Based on the federal government’s own FOIA records, the program had about a 99% failure – targeting and destroying the wrong Americans. Many Americans likely suffered premature death from Bush’s series of blunders.

    In 2003, the BPD was designed for foreign terrorist groups. Today in 2023 the largest terrorist threat to America is no longer foreigners but domestic right wing extremists. Many Republicans are now the target of the Bush Preemption Doctrine.

    Trump’s January 6 supporters are now the top target of Bush’s unconstitutional preemption doctrine – not foreign threats.

    In 30 years, today’s Republicans will be the minority group in many voting districts.

    Republicans more than anyone should be strengthening the constitutional rule of law system. For more than 20 years Republicans had no problem violating the rights of other Americans.

    Bush was arguably the worst enemy of the U.S. Constitution in 200 years. Maybe stop blaming Democrats and take personal responsibility for gutting the constitutional rule of law under Bush and still supporting Trump’s coup attempt.

    Do the math – these unconstitutional practices are now pointed at Trump supporters. It’s also possible former Bush DOJ attorneys and Bush leaders could still face war crime indictments in the years to come.

    1. Okay so now you’ve just transitioned into a contemptuous and clichéd partisan attack on Republicans, based on complete BS talking points that the far left wing touts. I thought we could have some sort of rational discussion, but apparently not. Enjoy your evening.

      1. Can everyone agree that the 4th Amendment has never been amended through the constitutional-amendment process? When was it amended?

        Every government official from the FBI to NSA to CIA swear an oath of office to not violate the U.S. Constitution, including the 4th Amendment, 2nd Amendment and every other right.

        After 9/11, federal officials skipped the constitutional amendment process.

        The 4th Amendment does not prevent any legitimate search, it only requires the official to truthfully fill out the warrant request.

        If the 4th Amendment can be totally gutted – skipping the constitutional amendment process – how is the 2nd Amendment protected from that same abuse?

        Government employers are good people but it’s quite possible they unintentionally destroyed more innocent Americans bypassing constitutional due process than the original attack.

        1. 4th Amendment?
          That’s funny you’re bringing this up.

          So, the registration is probably the goal.
          The state doesn’t know which guns you own unless they can seize the 4473 and other paperwork from the gun store.
          The registry by passes this. Its the first step towards confiscation.

          So if you don’t register the firearm… unless there’s another reason for your home to be raided… having your AR-15 or whatever gun you own that is outlawed by PICA, becomes a safe queen. Or you take it out of state until this law gets shot down.

          So if you’re a law abiding citizen who failed to register their firearms as required… unless they have a reason other than that they suspect you own such a gun… any search … even with a warrant … would be illegal. Of course it would cost you $$$$ to fight it which is what they are counting on… along with a judge who will side with them allowing the warrant to stand.
          (Which then becomes the next issue in front of SCOTUS if they decide to take it.)


  4. There are “Voter Issues” versus “Constitutional Rights”.

    “Voter Issues” are usually “popular” with the majority of voters in any given voting district. Voters can choose anything they please as long as it’s within constitutional out-of-bounds (boundaries set by the U.S. Supreme Court).

    “Constitutional Rights” are the outside legal boundaries of popular elections. These rights are primarily won in the courts , many times when the majority of voters overstep constitutional rights. (ie: Jim Crow laws that violated the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments).

    When the majority of voters, in any voting district, violates those constitutional rights, James Madison termed it the “tyranny of the majority” – the majority group bullies the minority group violating their rights.

    For example: if 90% of voters in any voting district wanted to abolish 2nd Amendment gun rights, or women’s voting rights, African-American rights or LGBT rights – it crosses into constitutional out-of-bounds.

    So a gun owner, woman or any person that believed a government agency, law or practice violated those constitutional rights could go to court and challenge that unconstitutional-authority in court. Any judge in the USA is dutibound to follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings on constitutionality.

    If a mayor or legislature passed a law violating the “Heller” gun rights ruling, a gun owner that was harmed (rights violated) could go to court and overturn any law passed by Congress or a local legislature.

    As a gun rights supporter myself, my point was Conservatives were virtually silent when George W. Bush largely gutted this constitutional system – now being turned against many Trump supporters.

    If gun owners are going to support the 2nd Amendment – that is NOT primarily a “Voter Issue” but a Constitutional Right – deserving the same protection as women’s rights, African-American rights and LGBT rights.

    Bottom Line: by continuing to support the “Bush Preemption Doctrine” and other unconstitutional practices – you weaken gun rights also. Can’t blame all of this on Democrats while ignoring Bush’s practices (enacted without a constitutional amendment).

    1. Here is a summary of what you said above, at least as I understand them, together with my responses.

      (1) You’re basically laying out how constitutional rights work. If state action infringes individual rights, the aggrieved party can challenge the state action in court, and judges are bound to uphold the Constitution, providing relief where the Constitution requires.

      My response: I agree. That is basic civics. It is not controversial.

      (2) You’re also accusing Conservatives of being dilatory in not challenging some unspecified action by President Bush.

      My response: if you’re referring to the Patriot Act, then generally speaking conservatives were wrong to support it and they have had a major shift in their thinking since then, recognizing their previous error. In making this shift, they have come home to their roots in favoring limited government and expressing skepticism of powerful, secret central state actors. So, I largely agree with you there too, although I don’t think you are willing to admit that the thinking on the right has changed pretty significantly on this topic in the last 20 years. If you’re referring to nation-building, that was primarily supported by neocons, and again there has been a shift where many former neocons have stopped being so, and are now just old fashioned conservatives. With that said, there are still numerous neocons in public life who haven’t learned a thing.

      (3) You’re making some connection between 2nd Amendment rights and other rights enshrined in the Constitution (I think).

      My response: Here your thinking gets a little muddled, in part because you’re not being specific enough to allow for an informed response. So . . . what exactly are you talking about, and how does it relate to the Second Amendment? That is, beyond the assertion that if one set of constitutional rights is weakened, all other (unrelated) constitutional rights are also thereby weakened. While that concept has some appeal, it still needs some fleshing out, in my opinion, because that is not obvious on its face.

  5. Responding to OldmanfromKansas:

    I actually support the 2nd Amendment and recent Supreme Court interpretations that you listed. A fair rulebook of any kind is fair and unbiased to all sides. I oppose government censorship, favored by some Democrats.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has also interpreted the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments that protects women having equal rights to men, African-American rights and LGBT rights.

    Using this very same measuring stick by the high court:

    The (Conservative-controlled) U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that women can participate in military special forces, become firefighters and even police officers. The court has ruled that LGBT-Americans have “equal” marriage rights and equal adoption rights for LGBT parents.

    The new Republican Speaker of the House in Congress, Mike Johnson, opposed the “Lawrence v. Texas” Supreme Court ruling in the 1990’s that no longer made it a crime to be homosexual.

    This “Lawrence v. Texas” ruling (and another ruling in Connecticut) also affected straight heterosexual couples – before the court abolished these unconstitutional state laws, it was a crime (sometimes a felony) for a straight unmarried couple to cohabitate or live together romantically. Before this ruling, any sex between any couple (straight or gay) that was not solely for making babies was technically considered sodomy (a crime in some states). Oral sex between straight couples would be a crime under this ruling.

    The new 2023 Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, was opposed to U.S. Supreme Court rulings like this one. Johnson wanted the government to be snooping into bedrooms. So much for Conservative’s limited non-intrusive government.

    I support 2nd Amendment rights. Why don’t today’s Republicans support the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments from the same rulebook?

    1. I thought we were discussing whether the phrase “the people” in 2A actually means “the government,” whereas everywhere else it refers to human beings. I’m not sure how any of the above has anything to do with that.

    2. The same rule book, you say? “Crazy Abe” illegally seized all power, destroyed the rule book (i.e. Constitution), and “fundamentally transformed the United States of America” into the communism of his fellow traveler, Karl Marx, by commencing the incremental implementation of its principles. 163 years later, look around you at all the communism: Admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      The “Reconstruction Amendments” were illegally forced upon America through the vigorous prosecution of Lincoln’s illicit and unconstitutional “Reign of Terror.” Secession is fully constitutional, and Lincoln denied that constitutional right and freedom. All subsequent acts of Lincoln and his successors, including the “Reconstruction Acts,” were and remain illicit, unconstitutional, invalid, and illegitimate. Lincoln must have been impeached and convicted for egregious crimes of high office.

      “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” eh, comrade.

      American freedom persisted for a mere 71 years. Lincoln ended American freedom and constituted the inflection point for America’s “fundamental transformation” into communism.

  6. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. See District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) (“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”).

    A particularly delusional commenter today is saying the word “people” in 2A actually means the government, even though it means humans everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, and even though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it in that fashion. He has not cited a single judicial decision reflecting his interpretation, and I doubt there is one because interpreting “the people” to mean “the government” is nonsensical.

    Not only is “people” understood in the Constitution to mean human beings, and not the government, the drafters of the Bill of Rights were legal experts who understood that governments don’t have “rights,” they have powers, whereas the people have “rights” which limit the government’s powers. See, e.g., the Interstate Commerce Clause (“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes . . .”).

    Then, after spouting his utter nonsense, he says that I’m uneducated because I can’t understand that “the people” actually means “the government” in a legal document which specifically written to protect the people from their government. This forum has been a place in which commenters have made ridiculous claims before, but I think this takes the cake as the most ridiculous one I’ve seen.

    Anon – if you wish to respond to this, cite a published judicial decision interpreting “the people” – as that phrase is used anywhere in the Bill of Rights – to mean “the government.” If you can’t cite to such a judicial ruling, they STFU.

    1. OMFK – I couldn’t find one, but I would also note that, at the time the Bill of Rights was written – if you look in the old dictionaries by Noah Webster and Samuel Johnson – “keep and bear” was commonly understood to mean “sell or give away.” Also, the word “arms” meant “bales of hay, produce, and other farm products.” Finally, “well regulated militia” meant a voluntary organization of independent farmers transacting business with each other in an unregulated market. Finally, “security” only referred to food security. You can look it up, I’m telling the truth. The Supreme Court in Heller didn’t look at these important historical sources.

      As a consequence, when factoring in the historical context, the second amendment is really aimed at making sure that farmers could trade produce, hay, and other farm products, and most particularly, give away bales of hay to their neighbors, so as to promote general food security throughout the fledgling nation.

  7. The words “well regulated” are literally listed in the 2nd Amendment, maybe read it?

    Most 2nd Amendment scholars (right & left) agree the militia clause essentially means your state National Guard.

    That’s means President Biden and your state governor are in charge of your state’s militia listed in the 2nd Amendment and it’s supposed to be “well regulated” by government officials.

    1. The words “well regulated” do not appear in 2A’s operational clause, which is the grant of individual rights, so your entire argument is BS.

    2. NO. the militia is not the NG. Per SCOTUS.

      The 2nd amendment is to protect the people FROM the government. The 2nd amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from infringing on rights predating the Constitution.

      Your logic prevents the government from disarming their own army. Because the Constitution forbids a standing army

    3. Regulation in the sense you’re using it didn’t exist when 2nd Amendment was written. There was no regulatory state as we know today. Regulation in the sense of a regulatory state didn’t come into being until well over 100 years after the 2nd Amendment was written. At the time of writing, regulated meant well-armed etc.

      No serious, nor most any non-serious, 2nd Amendment scholar would agree the militia clause refers solely to the National Guard. One, there’s also the Naval Militia and two, the militia in the US consists of two classes, organized and unorganized. The National Guard in conjunction with the Naval Militia is the organized class. The unorganized class consists of “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States…who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

      There has never been a point in time in US history where the militia didn’t include private citizens.

    4. You falsify, prevaricate and equivocate while fantasizing that a few idiots somewhere will believe you.

      You make —- up as you go along.

      2nd Amendment

      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.

      Simplicity for those of you in Rio Linda.

      The 2nd Amendment consists of two statements:

      1. A militia is necessary.

      2. The right shall not be infringed.

    5. Well regulated means ” well working” or ” organized” … it’s not what you think and you know it.

  8. I recently read about a man named Dixon who plugged a Comanche with a single shot at 1539 yards — at Adobe Wells in the Texas panhandle if that matters.

  9. So the billionaire idiot fatso dictator of Illinois, prickster, and his gay trans brother have pushed another amendment of the bill of rights into the dustbin.
    Congrats demoncrats, the total revolution you so deeply desire is almost here.

  10. It’s highly possible (even likely) that most gun owners in America have a dossier with your state’s “Fusion Center”. When it can harm you is if you were a farmer, truck driver or buying things like fertilizer and gasoline but also a Trump fan on social media – such a person is likely on your Fusion Center’s radar.

    Try filing a FOIA (Freedom of Information Request – simple letter) to check out your own dossier at your local Fusion Center (usually located in your state police headquarters of each state – funded by DOJ and DHS)! Good luck with that! Many times the address and phone number of the FC is secret, nearly impossible to file a FOIA request.

    Can’t blame Democrats, Bush Republicans invented this unconstitutional blacklisting system. If FCs are using Cointelpro style tactics – the goal is to not to arrest you, but far worse covert punishments.

    Since the goal is not arrest or confrontation, you have no “legal standing” to go to court and challenge these illegal covert tactics .

    Don’t trust me. File that FOIA! Then call your member of Congress and state legislators.

  11. “Nobody needs an AR-15 for self-defense, just like they don’t need machine guns or RPGs.”

    Thankfully, the Founders had an answer for this, which is why the 2nd Amendment was part of what is called the Bill of Rights, as opposed to the Bill of Needs…

  12. About 100% of us are required to have Driver’s License to operate a car, primarily to protect other people. Truck drivers operating tractor-trailers, due to a higher potential risk to other people, are even more heavily regulated.

    Even with all of this government regulation, any American can drive anywhere in the United States. If you have a passport you can even drive to Canada or Mexico.

    If there is minimal common sense regulation for operating a vehicle, why is there less regulation on military grade assault weapons that can potentially cause equal or greater harm to others?

    1. “If there is minimal common sense regulation for operating a vehicle, why is there less regulation on military grade assault weapons that can potentially cause equal or greater harm to others?”

      Because the former is a privilege whereas the latter is a constitutional right. Orders of magnitude different.

      1. Following 9/11 and still happening today, thousands of American – with no evidence of wrongdoing, no evidence of criminality and no ties to terrorism – were stripped of most of their Bill of Rights (not privileges).

        Conservatives and Republicans had no problem with bypassing constitutional due process for more than 20 years. This program still exists in 2023.

        By contrast, compared to 9/11, guns have killed more people in one year than 20 years of inflated terrorism threats!

        Why aren’t Conservatives correcting the constitutional abuses of George W. Bush, since Bush’s policies are now pointed at many Conservatives?

        1. You’re right to criticize Republicans for going along with the Patriot Act at the time. There has been a major shift in thinking among the Republicans I’ve talked to since that time, as it has become apparent that the feds are abusing those powers, and moreover, such abuse should have been predicted at the time the legislation was passed. But none of that has to do with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Nor does it have to do with deaths from meth or fentanyl which far outstrip deaths from gun violence. They’re entirely separate topics – other than the “inflated terrorism threats” are not really that inflated, with the souther border being open to terrorist operatives entering the U.S. in large numbers. And Israel’s failure to allow its civilians to be armed at the time of 10/7/23 contributed significantly to the death toll among civilians. In recognition, Israel has wisely reversed its policy.

          As for why conservatives aren’t trying to correct those abuses, actually many now are, but they need help from the Dems since Republicans only control one-third of the law-making process at this point. In addition to that, many republicans are cynical RINOs and don’t act on principle, so we lose a part of our contingent for that unfortunate reason.

    2. More regulations, yeah, that must be the answer, says the Leftist dupe, dope, or dummy. Reminds me of the “professionals,” when faced with the requirement of passing an Ethics Examination, simply cheated to “pass” the exam. Perhaps you could start a grass roots required educational program to teach children from the inner city of Chicago how to acquire firearms on the black market, how to properly kill somebody with a firearm, and how to to properly clean their weapons. Then, as a dedicated Leftist, you could tell yourself, over and over, “I’m such a good person, doing good for my community, making the world a better place; not like those hateful, law abiding non-Leftists!”

    3. “If there is minimal common sense regulation for operating a vehicle, why is there less regulation on military grade assault weapons that can potentially cause equal or greater harm to others?”

      – Aninny

      Answer: Because the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says so, Congress cannot infringe on or otherwise deny the right to keep and bear arms, and States cannot deny constitutional rights and freedoms.

      If you’re upset by deaths by rifles, why are you not upset by deaths by motorized vehicles, which cause 40,000 deaths annually?

      Why are you not advocating for and promoting a movement to BAN CARS?  

      I hear Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam and many other communist-lite countries are nice this time of year, comrade.

  13. “A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”

    Who has the right to food?

    A well-balanced breakfast or The People?

  14. For about 15 years, your state’s “Fusion Center” likely has the capability to prevent most mass shootings from military grade assault weapons. These Fusion Centers have the capability today to monitor all owners of military grade assault weapons.

    Without spending an addition dime to taxpayers, Fusion Centers could track those weapons simply by switching priorities.

    For the past 15+ years, Fusion Centers have been tracking non-criminals, non-terrorists and non-violent Americans – most more law abiding than many gun owners.

    These FCs have been violating constitutional rights for almost two decades and violating U.S. Supreme Court rulings like “Carpenter v. US” and “US v. Jones”.

    Congress and your state legislature have granted FCs almost unconditional secrecy and exempted them from most FOIA requests – even for non-terrorism cases – cases governed by the Bill of Rights. The Freedom of Information was literally gutted without debate amongst the voters.

    It’s curious that constitutional conservatives and gun owners, have been silent for almost 20 years about this constitutional crisis!

    Fusion Centers can very effectively track any gun owner in any school district or other targets of mass shooters – without increasing taxes one dime.

Leave a Reply