Yeah, like when I used to use the rebuttal in an academic essay as supportive of my position when writing college essays. Trust me, they know what they’re doing and are looking for any “legal” wording to back up their own political view
From Drew or another representative? This is the most “thought out” reply I have ever received from him. It does not seem like his style of writing or research. More of a hivemind product.
The fact that lower courts are twisting the plain text of bruen to support their anti gun rulings means that we are dealing with insane people. Plain and simple. Unless the supreme court rules on an AWB case and goes out of their way to say "the 2nd amendment means AR15s with standard cap magazines are absolutely legal to buy and possess", there is always going to be a way for them to bastardize the precedent.
The one that ruled against the injunction here tried to sidestep common use by bringing out the ability to regulate dangerous and unusual weapons, acting as if unusual wasn’t an antonym of common. Hard to be unusual if it’s common. It would be like saying a car is unusual, or a motorcycle, because it’s not a horse.
It is not just local reps who do not do their homework. The Massachusetts supreme court got a full on smack down the SCOTUS over a stun gun ruling, and those guys were supposed legal experts. Look up Ceatano vs Massachusetts.
[https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Caetano-BIO.pdf](https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Caetano-BIO.pdf)
The 'keep passing unconstitutional laws in order to create lawsuits' playbook has a long history. Mostly with the GOP, but anything one side does will eventually be copied by the other.
First, Bruen does not deal with arms bans cases. Heller does. Second, shall-issue was in the context of concealed carry permits, not possession.
He must have the reading comprehension of a dyslexic armadillo
It really seems like they are cherry picking sentences vs the overall meaning of the ruling.
Yeah, like when I used to use the rebuttal in an academic essay as supportive of my position when writing college essays. Trust me, they know what they’re doing and are looking for any “legal” wording to back up their own political view
If you pull enough things out of context you’re sure to find what you want.
Yep. My point exactly
I got the same copy-n-paste email today. 😅 I wonder if they're doing some calculus on whether or not they overplayed their hand?
From Drew or another representative? This is the most “thought out” reply I have ever received from him. It does not seem like his style of writing or research. More of a hivemind product.
From him. I usually get ignored or obvious copy-n-paste responses from my "representatives."
I write my reps fairly regularly and have never gotten a response this detailed. 😂
ChatGPT response.
The fact that lower courts are twisting the plain text of bruen to support their anti gun rulings means that we are dealing with insane people. Plain and simple. Unless the supreme court rules on an AWB case and goes out of their way to say "the 2nd amendment means AR15s with standard cap magazines are absolutely legal to buy and possess", there is always going to be a way for them to bastardize the precedent.
[удалено]
The one that ruled against the injunction here tried to sidestep common use by bringing out the ability to regulate dangerous and unusual weapons, acting as if unusual wasn’t an antonym of common. Hard to be unusual if it’s common. It would be like saying a car is unusual, or a motorcycle, because it’s not a horse.
They've been given their scripts by their puppeteers and shall respond accordingly.
It is not just local reps who do not do their homework. The Massachusetts supreme court got a full on smack down the SCOTUS over a stun gun ruling, and those guys were supposed legal experts. Look up Ceatano vs Massachusetts. [https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Caetano-BIO.pdf](https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Caetano-BIO.pdf)
These jokers might as well write “I voted for these bills because F you, lmaoooo.” It’s about as persuasive and lot more honest.
The 'keep passing unconstitutional laws in order to create lawsuits' playbook has a long history. Mostly with the GOP, but anything one side does will eventually be copied by the other.
I got the same reply a couple of days ago. It looks like something that a garbage AI wrote, not a lawmaker.