Court decides the right to keep and bear arms includes the right bear arms

archive.is/HY8Q2

Nice

Niiiiccceeee…

Problem left to draw a line between intimidation and carry.

Honestly what I, a filthy leaf, know about the califilth ninth circuit court… it suggests this should be impossible.

I doubt it's them actually doing it for the right reasons (I bet they want it solely for fags/shitskin protection, since Drumph is TOTALLY gonna send em to Auschwitz 2.0), but it's still a move in the right direction.

now time to put that to the test
how can LA and other counties/cities impose their anti gun open carry laws then?

Is this real life? I'm not sure how to react, I wasn't expecting this from the NCC.
How is the reaction on Twitter? Lots of salty tears?

If that's not the most Irish name I've ever heard..

How do you even say that? Dire-mud Oh-scan-lane?

See, the trick is to be inebriated while saying it. You'll still get it dead wrong, but if O'SCannlain is drinking too and of course he will be, he won't care.

It's pronounced Durrmid Fintan Ohskanlyn.
t. Norn Iron

He must have been drinking for to rule in favor of gun rights.

That looks like fucking Orcish.

...

Oh yeah, almost forgot
Yes, you can carry. However, you must pay out your ass to carry and the only thing you can carry is a single shot .22 that needs several ID scans, a psyche evaluation, and a weeklong waiting period before firing.

Its going to, for better or for worse escalate to to SCOTUS after an enbanc hearing which we will not win because that means the (((Randomly))) selected 11 will be fucking libs. SOCTUS obviously did not want to hear a 2A argument as evidenced earlier this year. If however, SOCTUS does hear it out, the chance of the ninth circuit court's en banc let's assume it reverses the original will likely be reversed or thrown out on technicality. However, given the sheer amount of casework by the 9th, it's unlikely SCOTUS will hear it. Most likely they will simply refuse to hear it unless !! some liberal gets ultra butthurt in the unlikely chance the majority of the en banc ruling affirm the current one.

They're simply hoping enough people open carry that nearly every normie will have some negative experience/stereotype in mind when thinking of gun owners. That way they don't object when the ban comes down.

The only person I've ever met who open carried in a manner that wouldn't disturb the average American moron worked in a poultry processing plant full of illegals. He was one of 5 white people working there and the only one capable of dealing with shit should one of their squatemalen slaves decidr to get out of line (theother 4 were either old or women). He was redpilled as fuck but I've never met another open-carrier who wasn't doing it to be an instigator.

From what I read, they basically didn't even bother reading the case and bullied the judge who voted against it for not just agreeing with the lower courts.

I'm impressed that a judge can publicly claim it's okay to fuck your citizens over, as long as you've been doing it long enough.

I don't think this says anything about may-issue states tying up carry permits with red tape or the issue of having to own a permit to carry in the first place, so I really don't think there's anything particularly exciting about this case. Still, it's nice to see the line in the sand creeping up in our favor. Affirming the right to bear arms on your person, permit or no permit, is no small feat.

Surprised there were no Hibernian tricks. Or are there?

Liberals too busy defending dan Harmon years of pedophilic jokes. Including raping a baby doll on camera because he mad at someone.

Kavanaugh did it, saying machine guns can be baned because they have traditionally been banned, and nobody is talking about it.

Who cares? Amerimutts don't deserve rights. If this was ruled in Europe, however, then it'd be something to talk about.

I've thought about trying to create a big iron cinematic universe before, where all the characters from the fallout songs will get their own movies before an avengers style team up movie.

The team will consist of the Arizona ranger, butcher Pete, the wanderer, and Johnny guitar.

Frank Sinatra's corpse will be like the Nick fury character that brings everybody together, and a running gag will be his arm keeps falling off whenever he tries to drink so he resorts to more and more desperate measures to feed his alcoholism.

In every action scene, there will be mysterious figure called "the headkicker" who can always been seen in the background of the chaos dropkicking people in the head. His identity is revealed in the crossover movie to be none other than Dean Martin's head grafted onto a Boston Dynamics robot, and our heroes must band together to fight the evil clutches of jukebox Joey, a man fused with a jukebox that refuses to play the songs our heroes are from.

Attached: 1528160182226.gif (500x279, 2.94M)

That sounds retarded. Kill yourself for even thinking that, mutt.

What about the left bear arms?

Attached: left bear arm.jpg (1600x1200, 329.83K)

Ambitious, but lore-friendly.
I approve, and wish you luck farming this production out to the right fallout giants.

I'd attach something about vault 77 but it seems I don't have it on this computer. Oh well.

It's time to cut them off.

Attached: farm.gif (1721x1084 83.7 KB, 3.7M)

This is some of the most retarded shit I've ever read.

Why not carry your own gun if you feel intimidated?
do you feel powerful, like a big man?

Attached: do you feel powerful, like a big man.jpg (600x315, 40.97K)

Hi Zig Forums. Shouldn’t you be having a circle jerk over your Zionist trump or failed metal musician who lets men fuck his wife because they are white?

You Brits should have starved them all when you had the chance.

Attached: hiberian cpnspiracy.jpg (748x2009, 451.17K)

It appears to be an exention of heller in this case. Specifically it notes that heller did not set definitive limits to ones right to defense. It also notes that the right to self defense must be signifigantly lesser outside of one's home.
Emphasizes on "with the scope [it was] understood to have when the people adopted [it]. I does anyone know if the new SCOTUS justice is a originalism pusher or views it as a living document?
It might be expanded (hopefully) to mean constitutional Open/CC nationwide. I doubt it
Does anyone have anyone know about sultry laws back in the 19th century?
you mean this?
I laughed so hard at the second one. Their basically saying his opinion runs counter to his duty as a judge and is literally not an argument. The dissent argument is literally, "because we did it before it must be legal now". He not only omits the fact that that there is only a need to prove a practical (rather than purely legal) destruction of the right, in this case the county never having granted a open carry permit in the first fucking place. They didn't bully him for dissenting, they tried to make him look like a partial shitead that fucked up because he had muh feelings. which should probably tell you a lot about this circuit
y'all take a look at the decision in the file below.