I doubt the democrats have been waiting years for a case like viramontes v cook (or Grant v. Higgins) to be heard at SCOTUS – such a case runs a very serious risk for their agenda and they know it – these are two of the cases the democrats ban agenda wishes would have not made it to SCOTUS. The democrats unconstitutional ban agenda was already, seriously, on thin ice after Heller 1 – 3, the ICE got a little thinner with Caetano v. Massachusetts, then Hemani landed its heat on the ice melting it a bit more, and not to forget Bruen which was a sledgehammer blow that still has them jumping from thinner parts of the ICE to more-thin parts of the ice while trying desperately to grab an ‘historical analogy life line’ that simply does not exist (and we saw that more clearly in Wolford with Hawaii’s desperate try with ‘spirit of aloha’ and a pre-statehood King and already unconstitutional racist gun laws after the founding era and laws for poaching). And now considering the more recent decision by SCOTUS in Wolford v. Lopez, its more likely the democrat agenda of unconstitutional bans is going to get the crap kicked out of it and vanquished.
Its not that these cases addressed guns bans specifically directly because they both did and didn’t in a broad sense as the decisions were more focused on the specifics of the case. Its that these cases pretty much cemented down that ‘arms are arms’ protected by the second amendment and then Wolford v. Lopez pretty much put the nails in their gun-ban agenda coffin and hammered them in by laying out very clearly that ‘bans’ by use of a ‘vampire rule strategy’ (or basically any ‘strategy’ not meeting the ‘text AND history AND tradition’) for constitutionally protected arms, which the court has already determined [indirectly, and in decision wording directly in phrasing] also applies to the civilian semi-auto AR-15 and other semi-auto firearms, that these bans are unconstitutional. It remains to be seen if a possibly pro-2A/gun decision will be applied to just the plaintiffs or broadly for everyone.
I’m not predicting its gonna be a slam dunk win for the pro-2A/gun community because anything can happen – but based upon whats happened so far in SCOTUS decisions starting with Heller there’s a pretty good likely hood the democrats gun-ban agenda will be in serious jeopardy with Viramontes v Cook and Grant v. Higgins at SCOTUS and I think the democrats and the rest of their anti-2A/gun conspirators know this especially after Wolford.
HOW SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM HELPED SAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT!
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBPqndddh9k
I doubt the democrats have been waiting years for a case like viramontes v cook (or Grant v. Higgins) to be heard at SCOTUS – such a case runs a very serious risk for their agenda and they know it – these are two of the cases the democrats ban agenda wishes would have not made it to SCOTUS. The democrats unconstitutional ban agenda was already, seriously, on thin ice after Heller 1 – 3, the ICE got a little thinner with Caetano v. Massachusetts, then Hemani landed its heat on the ice melting it a bit more, and not to forget Bruen which was a sledgehammer blow that still has them jumping from thinner parts of the ICE to more-thin parts of the ice while trying desperately to grab an ‘historical analogy life line’ that simply does not exist (and we saw that more clearly in Wolford with Hawaii’s desperate try with ‘spirit of aloha’ and a pre-statehood King and already unconstitutional racist gun laws after the founding era and laws for poaching). And now considering the more recent decision by SCOTUS in Wolford v. Lopez, its more likely the democrat agenda of unconstitutional bans is going to get the crap kicked out of it and vanquished.
Its not that these cases addressed guns bans specifically directly because they both did and didn’t in a broad sense as the decisions were more focused on the specifics of the case. Its that these cases pretty much cemented down that ‘arms are arms’ protected by the second amendment and then Wolford v. Lopez pretty much put the nails in their gun-ban agenda coffin and hammered them in by laying out very clearly that ‘bans’ by use of a ‘vampire rule strategy’ (or basically any ‘strategy’ not meeting the ‘text AND history AND tradition’) for constitutionally protected arms, which the court has already determined [indirectly, and in decision wording directly in phrasing] also applies to the civilian semi-auto AR-15 and other semi-auto firearms, that these bans are unconstitutional. It remains to be seen if a possibly pro-2A/gun decision will be applied to just the plaintiffs or broadly for everyone.
I’m not predicting its gonna be a slam dunk win for the pro-2A/gun community because anything can happen – but based upon whats happened so far in SCOTUS decisions starting with Heller there’s a pretty good likely hood the democrats gun-ban agenda will be in serious jeopardy with Viramontes v Cook and Grant v. Higgins at SCOTUS and I think the democrats and the rest of their anti-2A/gun conspirators know this especially after Wolford.
Oh, to add: the McDonald v. City of Chicago case also pounded on the democrat gun ban agenda.
too late.
i’ll be stocking up on something.
it won’t be boopenboppers.