VanDerStok v. Garland
BY Herschel Smith
3 days, 2 hours ago
What a sham. Here is the decision.
I understand what happened. The lawyers took this up under the administrative procedures issue. Hindsight is 20-20, but I wish they had taken it up under the 2A. Even if we had lost, it would have prevented the justices from hiding under administrative procedures and fully come out of the closet as anti-2A. Even the great “libertarian” justice Gorsuch is on record during the bump stock oral arguments suggesting that the Congress should take action to make them illegal.
But if we implement my recommendations, there’s still a lot to be gained.
This would give us Judge James Ho and Don Willett. And the SCOTUS could be overruled by the fifth circuit. It's a win-win!
— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) March 27, 2025
On March 29, 2025 at 12:43 pm, MTHead said:
This is the BS. If it deals with “bearable arms”, it’s a 2A case. Plain and simple.
And every official of the court has ZERO excuse for not knowing that. Their side and ours.
So, the congress or ATF can ban sights on my rifle? Or rifle scopes? Because there not an arms, themselves?
It MY right to choose that which I want on my “bearable arm”, not the government.
It’s MY right to choose how I go about protecting my hearing, not the government.
It’s MY right to choose which “bearable arm” I use be it rock, knife, or gun with a 30 rnd. magazine to defend myself and those around me. Not the government.
And the fact that the court hides from those truths proves their guilt under 241 & 242.
On March 30, 2025 at 10:07 am, Ken said:
People just don’t get it. It’s over. These people (gov of all stripes + leftist and RINOS) don’t follow the US Constitution. The deep state blob sewer dwellers or what ever you call them are NOT going to stop what they are doing. Long ago a man made the statement “if we can keep it”. Question answered. Not saying don’t fight (in all ways before and after CW II). We must. I just don’t see a path forward to save our country.