A Mississippi court in the 5th Circuit has just ruled that a ban on machine guns is inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of the 2nd Amendment, which makes the ban unconstitutional. Admittedly, this decision only applies to the defendant in the case, but it is the correct decision.

One court case at a time. There is a chance that, some time in my life, I will be able to go down to my LGS and walk out with a FA. That day will be a glorious one.

Categories: Gun Laws

9 Comments

Robert · February 5, 2025 at 8:53 am

I would not get a fully automatic weapon, even if I could legally walk into the hardware store and buy one off the shelf. That is because I could not afford to feed the thing with ammunition. They are fun to shoot if somebody else is buying.

Now, when suppressors can be purchased without a license or tax stamp or background check, I will have one for every weapon. It is hearing protection after all. I understand that in Finland, they are required accessories when using a firearm.

This is the way.

    Divemedic · February 5, 2025 at 11:27 am

    There are many things that I can’t afford. It doesn’t mean that I believe no one should be ALLOWED to do so.

Pete · February 5, 2025 at 9:17 am

Pointless to ban full auto when most gun crimes are committed by blacks using pistols. You want to ban guns, Democrats? OK fine.

Show us how it’s done by cleaning up your black cities FIRST. If you can’t accomplish that, why should we let you take our rifles?

Randolph Scott · February 5, 2025 at 9:27 am

I’m looking forward to that day as well.

Bazooka Joe · February 5, 2025 at 11:06 am

Cue the cat reading the newspaper meme and I think I’ll buy a machine gun.
I think it is 1986 when they decided that you couldn’t own a MG.
There used to be a military gear used in movies guy along the interstate, good times.

oldvet50 · February 5, 2025 at 11:29 am

Can someone explain how this ruling applies to only one citizen in the US, yet Miranda vs Arizona applies to every living soul in this country????

    Dirty Dingus McGee · February 5, 2025 at 5:29 pm

    Because this ruling hasn’t made it to the supreme court. Miranda vs Arizona did.

      oldvet50 · February 6, 2025 at 7:13 am

      Thanks. I did not realize the concept of ‘precedence’ only applied to Supreme Court rulings. I would have thought that the ruling should at least be binding on all persons within that court’s jurisdiction.

SoCoRuss · February 5, 2025 at 1:58 pm

This country will have collapsed and be history before that happens.
If we get thru this year without the financial collapse happening, it will be a miracle.
No other reason for him and his Oligarch buddies pushing the digital stuff. Pushing our treasury debt sales to the UK to do is to try and put off their collapse and not start the explosion of the west debt bombs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.