(im not well versed in legal things) why cant we sue the government for infringing on our 2nd amendment rights as all...

(im not well versed in legal things) why cant we sue the government for infringing on our 2nd amendment rights as all gun laws are an infringement? does it set a bad precedent if we lose? i think it would be a great time to do it now as most of the judges appointed are pro 2a

Attached: Plaintiff+Supreme+Court+DC+Gun+Case+Picks+cUtmXBvrCFZl.jpg (580x594, 87K)

We can. Nobody has the balls to take on a system that can ruin your credit, life, and reputation on a whim. The last American patriot was Timothy McVeigh.

Think around the corner, how would they respond? They'd have 10 more school shootings and then have Crazy Maxine stir someone up into using a machine gun on another baseball practice.

yeh because real patriots kill innocent women and children

Lawsuits have been filed against just about every gun control law you can think of.

It's just that to get to SCOTUS they have to lose in the original case, appeal, lose in an appellate court, lose again, appeal, lose, appeal, etc. until they have nowhere to go BUT SCOTUS.

At that stage SCOTUS either takes the case or doesn't. Usually they don't. They have total discretion over which cases they hear and why. Trouble is if they reject a case that has been ping-ponged all the way to their level it by default affirms the previous appellate court ruling, which affirms all the court rulings that led to it. So just because they don't have time or don't feel like hearing a case, that previous ruling (which the appealing party presumably lost) stands.
Another case on the same law can be appealed again, but faces similarly long odds.

Also don't forget gun laws get struck down by lower courts all the time. For instance California struck down a law years ago banning the mail order of pistol ammunition because the law couldn't define what pistol ammunition was. This was a state appellate court, it didn't need to go to federal or SCOTUS.
Of course they just rewrote the law banning the mail order of all ammo, but with luck the lawsuit against that might kill that law in a couple decades.

Shit takes time, yo. Sometimes you get lucky, usually you don't. It's easy for politicians to pass these laws and far more difficult to fight them or get them repealed.

people dont hate guns that much to stage school shootings

i was referring to gun laws on the federal level

>innocent
Those who enable a corrupt installation are complicit in its crimes, and children do not belong in a government installation. Place the blame where it belongs, in those who okayed keeping kids in a military target. They knew full well they were using them as a shield.

so that makes all pro gun politicians complicit

Yes. Yes, it does. "Innocent" is a myth.

So everything is fucked and nothing will ever become better?

We start getting politicians prosecuted for Conspiracy Against Rights first.

Not true it just takes time, education and the willingness to follow law.
There's just to much incentive not to follow the constitution. The rights that were ratified, were rights before ratification.
There will be a constitutional convention but everyone is afraid of it so they delay it.
There are larger questions at play then who shall be armed and by what manor.
Most just arn't willing to disrupt what for them works, enough for the time being.

Suing is the Jewish cowards way of doing things. Have some self respect.

Because the supreme court wouldn't even bother looking at the case. They would just go "lol no"

>Paid your taxes? You are now a valid military target.

Attached: 1528602330197.jpg (601x601, 121K)

In the most likely scenario it will only get worse. It would take a total 180 and Trump would have to have another shot at SCOTUS appointment. That would be fantastic, but the bigger picture is that the US is on a race against the clock to save its civilization from collapsing. Mass secession is on the horizon if things don't take an immediate 180. I'm banking on secession because I think it will fundamentally make everyone better off (including California because it would implode and be forced to create a sustainable state). The big takeaway is that the return of gun rights is really the least of our worries as a nation and the best chance you have at getting them back is if your state becomes its own sovereign entity with the ability to pursue its own destiny.

Just start killing any politician that writes up new gun control laws. They will eventually get the message.

this is nonsense. the push for gun control is 100% media-fueled. it's a way to keep gun owners on a short leash and to discourage leftists from owning guns in the first place. it's a psyop.

you'd have better luck going after their big donors and sponsors. politicians are just figureheads, stooges, and hacks.

It's people waking up, mostly its white men who are waking up to there power level. The law was created for and only for white men.
This is a big issue, because boomers are dying and as they go so goes their programming. The lies and fraud that they consumed on TV and in government schools, is coming undone with the internet. Truth is setting men free as it always does. Its slow, painful but with the internet nothing is ever forgotten.
You can just look things up, AI will speed up the process and ignorance will no longer be possible.

You stupid nigger I didn't say it wasn't I said it is peanuts compared to immigration and economic collapse. You think if all your rifles had auto sears you'd somehow be able to coexist with spics and nigs? Or that your autos will prevent a global economic collapse that makes 2008 look inconsequential in comparison? Get a sense of perspective, dude. Very dark clouds are on the horizon and smart money is on having to brave the storm rather than divert it.

>caring about the future

t. Canderous

Attached: 1A6E0DF8-29AD-4B85-98BF-AE01E484BF35.jpg (419x359, 40K)

i already have to coexist with spics, nigs, and everyone else you fuckers let in over the past several decades. we knew this was going to happen. i remember in primary school our spanish teacher said we should learn spanish because of demographic predictions, which were publicly available for all to see, and that was in the late fucking 90s.

and now you're telling me that more partisan bickering is needed to counter the trainwreck caused by polarization, partisanship, ignoring common sense in decades gone by? bullshit.

they'd keep us barefoot and stupid as long as they can make a buck and not own up to their own stupid mistakes.

Attached: 1515807881058.gif (500x500, 1.71M)

Trump vs Hawaii may have broader applications. Only time will tell. In a nut shell it says that a single federal judge can go fuck himself and he can't make a decision for the entire country based on his opinion alone. It also says that if they continue to do so that the right for a federal judge to make such a decision will be taken away all together. So that being said, district court mandates could be overthrown much more easily. For instance all the California cuckery that is California specific might not hold up in the near future. Emphasis on may and might to all of this of course.

and if things really are so bad that they just want us to arm up and prep, then holy shit that's not good at all.

but the survival/prepper fad goes back at least a decade. that wasn't enough time to avert whatever crisis they need us armed and trained for?

link to credible source on this outlandish precedent you claim?

>at least a decade
oh sweet summer child

>unironically calling a CIA agent that killed a bunch of nobodies to garner sympathy for the goverment and managed to kill the Militia movement a patriot

You can find it yourself pretty easy, im not that user and even ive read their quote abouting abjucating their injunction ability as a means to maintain checks n balances. Those r key words to help you find the quote.

you've bought a pack of gum and paid tax
you are now a valid military target

Look at the politics of all the recent high-profile shooters
Democrats or left-leaning

Guns dont kill people, democrats do

>real patriots kill innocent men, women and children
exactly. thats what Isreal and the US Govt does
its only a crime when someone else does it.

autism

42 U.S. Code ยง 1983

Attached: 1455682869807.png (1200x950, 1.32M)

You would have to show some sort of damage (money loss or jail time) has been done to you because of how the Federal government enforces gun laws. Basically if no damage is done to you there is no standing to sue. As it stands right now its difficult to prove damages. While as points out 42 U.S.C 1983 gives some one the right to sue they would still have to show some harm that the depravation of such rights caused. It also has to be more than I can't buy this cool gun more like I got arrested for shouldering an AR pistol.

That's literally how it works at the federal level.

>Being this naive

>why cant we sue the government for infringing on our 2nd amendment rights
Do like Alaska and arrest them. Pic related.

Attached: HAHAHAHAHA!!.jpg (765x605, 156K)

>It would tell citizens that they had more power than the feds
Imagine being such a limp wristed faggot that you like the idea of the government being able to walk all over you. Fuck you for wanting rights.
also
>High capacity ammo clips

I would die of shame if my life was as pointless as that author's is.

So, does this mean full giggle switch and no stamp in Alaska or what?

Attached: mildly amused.gif (500x288, 960K)

Attached: art imitates life.jpg (255x295, 29K)

Except for Cruz, Santa Fe, Vegas (sov cit), Sutherland (wife beater looking for revenge), Elliot Rodger, and just about every other mass shooter except for the one guy at the baseball practice.

>Hey my kid died, but I'm not sad because he died for the revolution!

kys

Ever heard of context? You should spread that blame around. Guess who helped him with the explosives? Guess who happened to not show up to the office the day he was bombing? As for the women and children while I might not agree the Federal Government set the ROE at Waco and let's not forget they have trophy pics over the smoldering ashes to boot. It's also pretty typical to immediately jump to "muh women and childrens" when it's clear it only applies when it's convenient to an agenda. You can look at the immigration issues going on for example. We separate families of American Citizens on a daily basis through the courts but nobody protests child services showing up or threatens to dox or kidnap their kids and again were talking about citizens.

Attached: beyondmad.jpg (500x500, 59K)

You are either a moron or a moron and also a Federal agent. Now git.

because placing limits is not infringement.
the is no clause where it states it shall not be limited.

k den senpai

Attached: democrats.jpg (960x880, 234K)

Was that crazy guy in Las Vegas the first right-winger?

Yes it is. Rights are just that. Protections are another thing. Rights are there with or without a the constitution. Protections cannot exist without the constitution.
The constitution could have limited ARMS to only small arms. But didn't There were Cannons and Mortors, as well as other explosives at the time. But the constitution didn't limit it to rifles only or pistols only. IT stated ARMS. All arms.
Let that sink in.