Another Shot Fired at Ferguson

Quote of the Day

The Magazine Ban is a complete prohibition on commerce in ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The Supreme Court has three times answered the specific question of what historical traditions of firearms regulation can possibly support modern day bans on certain types of “arms.” Those cases establish that states can only ban arms that are “dangerous and unusual.” Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are neither.

Joel B. Ard
Ard Law Group PLLC
Attorneys For Plaintiffs


The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a motion in U.S. District Court for summary judgment in its challenge of Washington State’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” in a case known as Sullivan v. Ferguson.

Progress is slow, but we are firing some powerful “ammunition” in our legal war.

I just wish we were in a position to use 18 USC 242 in this fight. Until we are, we will always be doing battle with the forces of evil over this issue.


5 thoughts on “Another Shot Fired at Ferguson

  1. What’s worse than Fergie’s mag ban? The fact that at some point that autocrat is likely to be our governor. At least we have the Constitution on our side – but the State Constitution protections for gun rights are disdained by the judges in Olympia. Only the Federal courts provide any hope for relief.

  2. One of the upsides to them ignoring the law laid down in both constitution and high court is that they can no longer claim to be lawful.
    This is very important for fence sitters to see them acting outside the law.
    Kind of like voting for Joe Biden because your a democrat. Then waking up to the fact he’s a lying criminal.
    Many won’t be able to un-see it.
    It’s important for us to. We need to cement in our hearts their criminality. And learn to despise them for the murdering scum they are.
    What we desperately need is for SCOTUS to hand down some contempt of court rulings on these feral communist judges. I’m not sure if they can do such things, but something needs to be said by the court.
    Maybe a statement of persona non grata? Perhaps a strongly worded order for stare decisis?
    Something to stem the flow of the endless bureaucratic drivel from states and lower courts. One would think the courts patience would be getting thin at this point?

  3. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to enforce its own decision again. All it takes is Quisling Roberts to persuade one of the fence sitters, in this case Barret, and poof, 5-4 against us. Until they start issuing summary judgements at that level, the bad guys will keep passing legislation and letting the court system take years to resolve the case.

    Agree about 242. One of the bright sides of the latest Trump indictment is they did use 242 against him. Absurd but it does set a precedent.

Comments are closed.