I think Parler might actually win their temporary injunction.... Apparently, AWS has in its contracts that it will not cancel the contract without 30 days notice.

That and given the fact that Parler is losing the opportunity to pick up all these new customers given what is going on with Twitter and FB.

To me, I think that is, in and of itself, enough for a temporary injunction and require AWS to open their account back up for the next 30 days or until the matter can get to a full hearing.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-amazon-web-services-inc/

There is the case that they suspended them, not terminated them.

There is nothing that states I need to register a weapon. I am confused.

You mean that AWS has just temporarily suspended them? If so, I would think the letter they sent them should have made that clear.

I have seen the exhibits yet.. just kinda breezed through the complaint.

Im confused as to what you mean and what is your comment in relation to?

Captiol police said he had an unregisterd weapon. ok I didn't know that was a thing

handguns in lots of states have to be registered

From what I hear u have to be approved by the District of Columbia to have a firearm

Only one that’s exempt is law makers

Sad... really sad. I live in a more gun friendly state and It would be difficult to get us to obey.

There is pretty hard evidence suggesting that AWS never intended to bring back Parler. Legally its a termination not a suspension however Amazon calls it.

I live in Illinois the state where u have to have a FOID which is state police approval to own a firearm and have to have a 72 hr waiting period before u can pick up a purchased weapon

You are actually correct. I just read the letter it says "suspend" not terminate.

Also... have you see the posts that AWS including in their letter to Parler?

"Violence Works.... keep them afraid" which pictures of Congressmen and women hiding. "We need to start systematically assassinating liberals..."

Damn... that letter does NOT help Parler

It’s only going to get worse from here. Mark my words gun violence displayed 24/7

Well.. obey or not.. if your jurisdiction requires it and you are found to have it it will get seized. So, I would either keep it at home or double check the laws. Lots of states require the registration of handguns (not always long guns tho)

foid sucks I know plenty of il people that don't care.

what there is a 2a what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?

Do u believe in gun control?

The only acceptable gun control is being able to put 3 rounds in the same hole at 1200 meters.

when I served I was given a gun. when I am done I need to apply for the right F that!!! Sheep wake up!!!!

Gun control? Well yeah... I think we need common sense gun laws. I don't have any problem with gun ownership.

I also do not think that 2nd Amendment gives you free reign to own any type of weapon you want and do that in any manner you want

There is no compromise with Unalienable and there is no concession in "Shall Not Be Infringed".

The 2nd Amendment is predicated on the need to have State Militias. The concern was that the Federal Government could come in and effectively dismantle the State Militias. The Founders were very split on just how much power, especially military, that the Federal Government should have... so they tried to strike that bargin.

Well... the Supreme Court disagrees with you... but sure whatever

No. The 2nd Amendment is predicated on the need to prevent government tyranny - which the Left are wont to do.

The Supreme Court has demonstrated that it no longer gives a rats arse about the existence of the Constitution.

@JD~Jordan forgot the second 1/2... there was a big ass , right in the middle of your statement!

Speaking for me. We should have a militia and our dumb asses only have a rod and gun club.... I kinda think we could be a militia but we are not terribly well organized. er we have money and meetings and vote??? what do you guys think if we are a militia give me a thumbs up.

Ok then let me ask u this. The city of Chicago is a no gun zone u cannot carry period. But there are massive holes in the whole policy of gun control because they don’t report if that gun was owned illegally or by a legal gun owner

Yes... that is exactly what I said... but when written the 2nd Amendment only applied the Federal Government... so it was Congress that could not infringe. An individual state could have absolutely restricted gun ownership.

The 2nd Amendment didnt get applied to the States until the 14th Amendment

Depends on where you live. There are militias.

Federal should always override the state

I hold that the restrictions established in the Bill of Rights needs to extend to include all governing authorities, such as incorporated entities. With the one caveat being that corporations, like governments, do not have to employ those whose purpose is contrary to their mission statement: such as our government not employing Chinese Communist Party agents, likewise a church would not employ a militant atheist.

No. The Federal is specifically restricted from overriding the state.

Again, it literally says it's a requirement of a **free state**, that the people of the state be armed. You're simply wrong on this one.

For instance u can buy marijuana legally in many states but it is still federally illegal

The Federal government never had the authority to make it illegal.

This is where things get hairy because of the differing policies of state by state nothing is uniform.

Sorry... Im really not. The Supreme Court originally ruled the exact way I am explaining it... and even the last time the issue was heard, in Heller it was a 5 to 4 split.

So nope... youre wrong in this case

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to main­tain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to con­cerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States.

In 1934, Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act. In that decision the Court held that:

 “…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable rela­tionship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regu­lated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instru­ment.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. 

So, its clear the Supreme Court in 1934 felt that the “right to bear arms” was only Constitutionally protected in so far as that right was in furtherance of the preservation of a “well regulated militia.”

I’m not saying the federal government should have control in saying no one should have it