The US First Circuit Court docket of Appeals, on April 17, held that Massachusetts regulation banning the sale, switch, or possession of an assault weapon will not be unconstitutional underneath the Second Modification, sending a transparent message to Individuals that the Boston-based kangaroo court docket is both illiterate, corrupt, or simply unforgivably silly.
I’ll be trustworthy right here, my capability to undergo foolishness kindly on this matter has completely expired, so in the event you aren’t a fan of name-calling and my propensity for the abrasive fact, then this one will not be for you.
Massachusetts resident, Joseph Capen, introduced the case, saying his plan to buy objects restricted by the infringement for the lawful function of self-defense, however a 3 blind mice panel of subversive activist judges who wouldn’t know a pure proper from ringworm carried out simply the correct quantity of psychological gymnastics essential to return with a ruling so closely steeped in treason that I’m offended by their citizenship standing alone, a lot much less their seat on a bench.
Comrade Choose Gary Katzmann, whom I undoubtedly wouldn’t let babysit my kids, wrote for the three-traitor panel that the “court docket” wanted to think about whether or not the regulation was “per this Nation’s historic custom of firearm regulation,” which might make it allowable underneath the Second Modification.
To be honest, Katzmann and his cronies would have discovered it per a bowl of cereal if doing so correctly served his anti-American agenda, and that’s about as believable because the panel’s holding that the ban on AR-15s, the most typical sporting rifle in America, doesn’t unduly burden civilian self-defense.
The court docket was so disingenuous in its ruling that it claimed Capen and extra appellants failed to indicate any occasion by which these fashions had ever been used for self-defense, an asinine discovering that any search engine might refute in seconds with days and weeks of studying materials.
Katzmann embarrassingly tried to correlate a longstanding custom of regulation with the outright banning of “particular weapons as soon as it turned clear that they posed a singular hazard to public security, together with mass deaths and violent crime unrelated to self-defense.” Nevertheless, no such longstanding custom exists, with the psychological gymnastics right here contributing largely to a tragic perversion of the Bruen choice, for which the Supreme Court docket is prone to tuck tail and expose its lack of backbone.
In truth, even machine weapons aren’t banned outright. However Katzmann and his ilk of treasonous judicial activists by no means burden themselves with obstacles like honesty, integrity, or their oath to America and the Structure. Why let any of that get in the way in which of the interior insurrectionist agenda?
Katzmann and his merry band of idiots additionally claimed the ruling was not inconsistent with Heller, noting that the Second Modification proper was not limitless and didn’t pertain to weapons “designed for army use.”
Whereas this take is genuinely not distinctive by any customary, it has additionally been debunked since, properly, the start, because the Second Modification clearly states in plain English, “A properly regulated Militia, being essential to the safety of a free State, the fitting of the individuals to maintain and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A “well-regulated militia,” by definition, refers to a physique of residents skilled and geared up to serve in a army capability, making certain the safety of a free state, the Founding precept behind the Second Modification.
Right here’s a observe to Katzmann and all of the activist judicial traitors on the market. If I can disprove you that simply, your kids ought to be embarrassed by your legacy. There’s little or no I discover extra disgraceful than absolutely the irreverence to your oath and obligation to the American individuals whilst you work to weaken the US of America and poison our founding values from the within.
All through historical past, many theories have been propounded as to the black robes worn by judges. Some say they supply a logo of the authority and energy conferred by the state, whereas others recommend they foster uniformity and promote the idea that justice stays blind. Judges like Katzmann and his First Circuit cohorts, nevertheless, deliver trendy readability to the garb, because it appears the true symbolism behind the black gown is the loss of life and mourning of our Structure.
