weapons – Page 4 – The Unwanted Blog

Three main options:

1) Ukrainian quadcopter flew hundreds of miles.

2) Russians PO’ed about their crappy government and their stupid war

3) The Russian government did it themselves.

Personally, #3 makes the most sense to me. Caiming that Ukraine launched an assassination/terrorist attack against Dear Leader is good propaganda, and it gives the Kremlin permission – as if it really needs it – to launch further extermination campaigns against Ukraine. If evidence can be manufactured to show that the drones came from, say, Germany or Finland or the US, that gives that much more evidence that Mother Russia needs to wipe out the west.

There are, of course, other options:

4) The Chinese did it. Why? For the same reason Red China hired SPECTRE to develop reusable launch vehicle technology in the med-60’s in order to snatch both US and USSR capsules from orbit: to spark a war between the other two powers. China stays out of it, then moves into the chaos and rubble afterwards.

Given that this ridiculous bill is *clearly* unConstitutional, it was largely inevitable, but it’s nice to see it happen. Of course Illinois will doubtless continue to fight for this nonsense, eventually dragging it before the Illinois Supreme Court and then doubtless before the US Supreme Court when the bought and paid for Illinois SC rules in favor of the bill. But it looks like, for now, reason has temporarily prevailed and Illinois residents can once again buy and transfer perfectly legal inanimate objects.

Happy Preliminary Injunction day, Illinois! Judge McGlynn slapped down the “assault weapon” ban HARD. https://t.co/jgrHaCn71N

The state cannot enforce the ban. Also, he makes it clear as to why the citizenry needs access to adequate weapons (the point of the 2A) pic.twitter.com/EaSo1sqOX5

— President Non_Fudd (@Non_Fudd) April 28, 2023

As Americans, we have every reason to celebrate our rights and freedoms,
especially on Independence Day. Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so
despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding
individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific?
More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the
United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The
simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is “likely no.” The Supreme Court in
Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess
firearms and may use them for self-defense. PICA seems to be written in spite of the

clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well-
intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens
rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the
support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of
fellow citizens. For the reasons fully set out below, the overly broad reach of PICA
commands that the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs be granted.

I do wonder if there will be a rush among Illinois residents to buy standard capacity magazines and AR-15’s before the next round of political hackery overturns this injunction. And will in-state and out-of-state businesses sell? It seems to be legal, for now, for businesses to do so… but this is Illinois we’re talking about, and no amount of corrupt chicanery is too much for the shrieking baboons who run the state government. I can see them trying to harass businesses and customers *now*, and then when they get their way again, retroactively harassing businesses and customers.

Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction. They have
shown irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law, a reasonable likelihood of
success on the merits, that the public interest is in favor of the relief, and the balance
of harm weighs in their favor. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary
injunction are GRANTED. Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing Illinois
statutes 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(b) and (c), and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10, along with the PICA
amended provisions set forth in 735 ILCS 5/24-1(a), including subparagraphs (11),
(14), (15), and (16), statewide during the pendency of this litigation until the Court
can address the merits.

The ruling is readable HERE.

Federal Judge Tosses Gun Possession Case Against Drug Users

“In short, the historical tradition of disarming ‘unlawful’ individuals appears to mainly involve disarming those convicted of serious crimes after they have been afforded criminal process,” Judge Cardone wrote in her opinion. “Section 922(g)(3), in contrast, disarms those who engage in criminal conduct that would give rise to misdemeanor charges, without affording them the procedural protections enshrined in our criminal justice system.”

As with “red flag laws,” a case can be made for disarming someone. But that case requires the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, due process, the right of the accused to put up a defense. Just yeeting someones rights Because Reasons is unAmerican. And taking someones guns because they smoke dope is pretty stupid when we *don’t* take someones guns because they drink alcohol. I’ve seen drunks, and I’ve seen stoners… and I know which of the two I’d consider more chill, more likely to just sit there and gnaw on some Cheetos, and which group would be more likely to fly into an irrational rage.

The Grim Truth: The War on Guns Is Lost

The author of this New Republic piece seems close to tears that:

Millions of Americans are exercising their basic rights

The Supreme Court recognizes their basic rights

Americans keep voting for enough politicians who understand the Constitution to keep the tyrants somewhat at bay.

This is one of those cases where reference to “liberal tears” is wholly legitimate. The author sees the idea of Americans being allowed to own standard firearms as a horrible tragedy, a failure of the police state she would prefer we lived in. The only hope she seems to have is in a “National Divorce.”

However, chances are quite good that the despair is performative. Take a look at the listing of the other New Republic pieces written by this author; they are all leftist black pills. Republicans either live rent free in her head, or she’s paying the rent by ginning up fear of Republicans.

Shrug.