I say why wait for a rogue SCOTUS decision against our God Given Rights? Hasn't 81 years of all out war on private arms ownership been enough? It certainly has been for me, proudly non-compliant since 1994. I encourage as many people that will listen to join The Armed Civil Disobedience of Non-Compliance.....NOW!!
DEFY-DECEIVE-EVADE-RESIST-SMUGGLE
November 7, 2015 at 5:31 AM
Anonymous said...
"we will not comply" should be changed to "we shall not comply" - If you think it's nitpicking, ask an attorney to explain the significance.
November 7, 2015 at 5:31 AM
Anonymous said...
"Will not" implies a personal conviction. "Shall not" implies a more universal prohibition.
I would be curious on the discussion right above (i.e., "Shall")
November 7, 2015 at 8:35 AM
Dave said...
The supreme court rendered itself irrelevant/illegitimate long ago.
November 7, 2015 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...
I'd prefer to see Ginsburg have no more votes on gun rights cases. Spend the next year year and a half refusing to comply and then make a full court press on GCA and NFA at the fundamental premise level. It is worth waiting until Ginsburg is gone.
November 7, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...
This whole process of SCOTUS reviewing constitutional rights is illegal and corrupt. Its based on the premise that only courts and lawyers can interpret the constitution but when you read Article 3 Section 2 it specifically restricts the SCOTUS authority to laws created by congress. To put it in their terms SCOTUS has "No Standing"
"No Decision Yet as Supreme Court Relists Gun Ban Case."
7 Comments -
I say why wait for a rogue SCOTUS decision against our God Given Rights? Hasn't 81 years of all out war on private arms ownership been enough? It certainly has been for me, proudly non-compliant since 1994. I encourage as many people that will listen to join The Armed Civil Disobedience of Non-Compliance.....NOW!!
DEFY-DECEIVE-EVADE-RESIST-SMUGGLE
November 7, 2015 at 5:31 AM
"we will not comply" should be changed to "we shall not comply" - If you think it's nitpicking, ask an attorney to explain the significance.
November 7, 2015 at 5:31 AM
"Will not" implies a personal conviction. "Shall not" implies a more universal prohibition.
November 7, 2015 at 8:13 AM
I would be curious on the discussion right above (i.e., "Shall")
November 7, 2015 at 8:35 AM
The supreme court rendered itself irrelevant/illegitimate long ago.
November 7, 2015 at 9:17 AM
I'd prefer to see Ginsburg have no more votes on gun rights cases. Spend the next year year and a half refusing to comply and then make a full court press on GCA and NFA at the fundamental premise level. It is worth waiting until Ginsburg is gone.
November 7, 2015 at 12:22 PM
This whole process of SCOTUS reviewing constitutional rights is illegal and corrupt. Its based on the premise that only courts and lawyers can interpret the constitution but when you read Article 3 Section 2 it specifically restricts the SCOTUS authority to laws created by congress.
To put it in their terms SCOTUS has "No Standing"
Yank lll
November 7, 2015 at 10:21 PM