I see you are having difficulty quoting from the Caetano decision, Joe. Could it be that the case doesn't address the topic at all, despite your claims to the contrary?
You have also gone quiet on the topic of the 1789.. or was it 1794 Bill of Rights. Does this mean you spent 30 seconds and...
I realize that you are slow, Joe. But you claimed this - only a few days ago.
Now, Joe - it is a really short decision - please quote from it to back up your claim.
Don't quote an article that you clearly misunderstand - quote the actual SCOTUS decision.
When will you be retracting all of your wrong shit, Joe? Or will we be going through your normal process where you drop the topic for some time, only to bring it up again - in the same wrong way - 6 months from now?
And you think that means:
Learn to fucking read, Joe.
If a court decision does not address something, that means there is no decision on it. Volokh points this out, and your hot take is that "one of those awful libertarians agrees with me"? Where does he agree with you?
Joe, you post over and over that "assault weapons" are to dangerous for a civilian to own. Since there is no federal definition anymore, we can only go by how various states define them.
You have praised NJ laws before; yet you don't seem to believe in their definition of AWs - why is that?