These activist judges need to be disbarred and barred from holding office when they blatantly ignore Supreme Court rulings and the US Constitution.

@goodcitizen64

Ай бұрын

These activist judges are blatantly violating their oath to the constitution and bill of rights and must be removed from office and charged by Congress! However, with the make up of Congress this is the normal and encouraged thus nothing will happen unless the people make it happen!

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

SCROTUS opinions are not law and they do not override the Constitution. You are part of the problem, Uberragen21.

@_JimmyBeGood

Ай бұрын

We live in a lawless land now and I doubt they care.

@embracethesuck1041

Ай бұрын

Even if that happened, their backers will pay them handsomely for their treachery. Not following the law requires punishment, not loss of a job.

@Macdonald-we4gx

Ай бұрын

Are u gonna go arrest them

If the Hawaiian Supreme Court can cite the "Spirit of Pele" and other nonsense to ignore Bruen, what will Massachusetts cite? The Salem Witches?

@Mark-ps6zf

Ай бұрын

😂😂😂!

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

Gun grabbers are not ignoring Bruen, they are abiding by it, because Bruen, like Heller, tells them to be more clever and specific about infringing.

@Magikarp-4ever

Ай бұрын

@barfo281 EXACTLY when I saw the Bruen decision I immediately thought of all the ways they could interpret it for their own agenda I knew it was a bad idea they can make any historic precedent if they talk long enough and confuse people

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

@@Magikarp-4ever SCROTUS does not care about the 2A or the rest of the Constitution. Heller upheld infringements and in Bruen, SCROTUS reaffirmed Heller and referred to Heller more frequently than they did the actual 2A (mentioning Heller 167 times vs the 2A 149 times). Page 21 of the Bruen opinion proves all the 2A channels and supposedly pro2A organizations wrong when they say Bruen is a door to abolishing all gun laws. It's the exact opposite of that; it's a roadmap for gun grabbers on how to satisfy SCROTUS with infringements. This is basically what SCROTUS really said in Bruen: "Although we can find no historical record of gun control laws saying XYZ, we are also unable to find any record of court challenges to those laws (that we couldn't find), so we therefore find them constitutionally permissible." It's right there on page 21. And even still, the whole "text, history, tradition" thing is nonsense, because that's SCROTUS saying, "If government violated the Constitution a long time ago, then they can keep doing it."

@jf4872

Ай бұрын

@@barfo281 The rulings made clear...Text and historical analogue dating back to 1791 otherwise the 'gun law' is unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment is not about self-defense but securing a free state. Self-defense is integral to the right to bear arms, but criminal acts are not the sole threat to a free state.

@hansoak3664

Ай бұрын

Exactly.

@abn82dmp

Ай бұрын

Criminal acts BY the Gov. ARE the real threats to the free state.

Any law that exempts law enforcement is unconstitutional

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. ~ Tacitus (A.D. 55?-130?)

@RARufus

Ай бұрын

That being the measure, the US is one of he most corrupt countries on earth. Even without that measure they are.

@tyrannosapienlex

Ай бұрын

And the "Law-Abiding Citizens" are just Masochistic Addicts who complain "Unconstitutional" while crying out to the Tyrants "Govern Us HARDER, Uncle Sam!" *_America: Born of Rebellion. Murdered by Compliance._*

Never give up your semiautomatic guns or standard capacity magazines also never give up your second amendment rights

@hansoak3664

Ай бұрын

The American People should never have given up their automatic weapons. The NFA was unconstitutional on its face. Now we have to claw that power back from a tyrannical government.

These appeals courts don't follow the Law or the Constitution and never will.

@CD-vb9fi

Ай бұрын

Because the Legislature will not make them. When courts do this, the control is for the Legislature to abolish that court as punishment. It must happen from time to time to keep them in line.

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

Why should they when SCROTUS doesn't either?

The right of the people not the right of the militia

@paulis7319

Ай бұрын

The people are intended to be the militia.

@rogerwood5228

Ай бұрын

​@@paulis7319the militia is a collection of the people. Rights are inherent to the individual, not the collective.

@seancollins9745

Ай бұрын

@@paulis7319 the people are militia , WE ARE MILITIA

@johnw9975

Ай бұрын

Why is "Shall not be infringed" ignored?

@paulis7319

Ай бұрын

@@johnw9975 Because tyrants want easy targets.

If it's ok for the police and the state to have assault rifles then the rest of us should be allowed to have them. Otherwise the people are left defenseless against both. That's why there's a Second Amendment

@Talon19

Ай бұрын

Better than that, law enforcement shouldn’t have guns at all.

@hansoak3664

Ай бұрын

In our constitutional republic, the view is from the other angle. Government cannot have that which the individual cannot because power comes from the people.

Bruen said anything and everything can be used as an ARM in defence of self. SO a magazine is an ARM. SHALL NOT INFRINGE.

@tobyhatch2547

Ай бұрын

I would look back to well before Bruen...sorta like back to Black's Law Dictionary before Webster's existed. #FreeMattHoover #FreeJustinErvin #AutoKeyCardTwo

@3DGEM3

Ай бұрын

@@tobyhatch2547 black law dictionary. I'll look into this

To me these lawyers that were arguing that's they have a right to ban guns need to be disbarred

Thanks for standing up for US.

It's always nice to hear a good old-fashioned southern girl tear up their arguments with some good old-fashioned common sense. 👍

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

It's nonsense. She repeats nonsense invented by SCROTUS and misleads you about what SCROTUS actually did in Heller and Bruen, which was that they upheld infringements and told gun grabbers to be more clever and specific about infringing in order to satisfy SCROTUS....because SCROTUS does not care about the Constitution.

It is despicable that courts let lawyers relegate the Second Amendement to "self defense." That alone is why we are consistently kept from possessing arms that are the most useful for defense against tyranny, foreign and domestic.

On that last point, it sounds to me like they’re saying the founders were too stupid to understand what they were legislating.

We the People of Illinois thank you for your hard work on our behalf! You are a great spokesperson for NGRA. Your updates are awesome!

Bruen rules, that judge can rot.

@Chaz136

Ай бұрын

2A and Bruen

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

Bruen upholds infringements.

There is only one way this is going to stop.

@rogerwood5228

Ай бұрын

Yup.... they're checking off all the boxes.

@LFDNC

Ай бұрын

Good time to continue the tap, rack, etc training.

If there's no lawful relief against these oath breaking judges, governors and legislators, ...!!!

IMHO, the repeated insistance of using "self defense" as the linch pin and sole perspective to argue for arms controls, is distorting arguments the the 2nd Amendment. The aspect of defending the nation against tyranny, either foreign or domestic, is being ignored and the importance of which is being minimized. Re types of arms needed for self defense against common criminals versus arms best suited to defend the nation against tyranny, the later is significantly more important. Arms capabilities in total must be sufficient to defend the nation against tyranny with secondary uses of criminal self defense. The argument of how these bans and proposed restrictions substantially undermine citizen's ability to defend the nation must be brought into the legal discussion sooner rather than later.

@Talon19

Ай бұрын

Agreed! AR and AK platform rifles meet every single criteria SCOTUS has for 2A protections. Handguns fail. Handguns also aren’t the most effective means for self defense. More 2A advocates need to be pushing for cultural changes such as requiring public schools give firearm safety and defense training. Public schools and civic organizations also need to sponsor youth marksmanship and ownership. And **dump** the concealed carry nonsense; at least half the adults in this country should be open carrying carbines every day.

@goodcitizen64

Ай бұрын

I agree 💯👍

@marysbigpimp

Ай бұрын

Exactly

You make it easy to understand why the 2nd Amendment is so important to in America! You do a great job!

Where does the phrase "self-defense" even appear in the Second Amendment? "Arms" are protected as a counter to a tyrannical government. Self-defense is important, but secondary in this case. I'm so tired of hearing "You don't need LCMs for self-defense!"

@Chaz136

Ай бұрын

Based (concur)!

@Talon19

Ай бұрын

The right doesn’t need justification. It’s a RIGHT.

@transtubular

Ай бұрын

Just as when they try to tell us we don't need them to hunt with, the Second Amendment isn't about hunting. It also isn't about Self defense.

@Talon19

Ай бұрын

@@transtubular It’s a right; there is no justification for other rights, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. No justification necessary.

@ichetuknee

Ай бұрын

The American Revolution began when the British government attempted to disarm the Colonists. The Colonists weren't trying to defend themselves against ordinary robbers, murderers, and rapists among them; they were trying to defend themselves against the murderers, robbers, and rapists who did their predations with the power of the government, which they controlled.

Thank you for including quotes and citations. Very strong argument for the 2A.

How come no one talks about our founding fathers using military rifles for offense?not just defence.

@Talon19

Ай бұрын

More like everyone used the same equipment because that’s all there was.

@tyrannosapienlex

Ай бұрын

Because they aren't REAL Americans. THEY think that a Republic born of Rebellion is best honored through Bootlicking Compliance. Bottom line, Cowards are the overwhelming Majority. Just like it was at the beginning. We gotta be BRAVE if we expect to live FREE.

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

Because the people you are listening to are Fudds.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the state. Citizens should not have to prove anything to exercise a constitutionally protected right. SCOTUS needs to put an end to this crap.

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

All rights are constitutionally protected. And SCROTUS is not the arbiter of YOUR rights. You are part of the problem.

Keep up the good fight! Romney's Permanent Assault Weapons Ban will ultimately be overturned.

@mtnbound2764

Ай бұрын

Romney, the biggest rino of them all

@goodcitizen64

Ай бұрын

Cornyn from Texas isn't far behind him!

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

@@mtnbound2764 Not bigger than RINO Trump.

never mind the firearms, some countries now want you to register any livestock you keep and your personal garden

@goodcitizen64

Ай бұрын

They want a world government with total control...not on my watch!

@louisbrentnell2551

Ай бұрын

They just passed that here and funded in a recent bill. The whole story was described in an episode on “Outdoor with Doug and Stacy”.

That’s like saying just because you’ve never had to USE your spare tire that it’s not suitable as a spare tire in case you get a flat.

If modern sporting rifles are not suitable for defending ones self or others, then what do police and soldiers use them for??? Isn't their main function to *defend* themselves, others, and the rest of the population??

As long as there are no penalties for disregarding the constitution and or the rulings of the Supreme Court these actions will persist.

Circus. Caught it. lol!

I feel people can't argue that they are not suitable for self-defense or are weapons of war if they are used by civilian police.

This case is so important to my life and the nation. Thank you so much.

Keep fighting!

Needs to be consequences for frivolous and outright unconstitutional laws from legislators that clearly defy Supreme Court rulings

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

SCROTUS gives opinions, not laws. Y'all are constitutionally ignorant.

If they're "ill suited for self defense," LE doesn't need them either. We face the same threats as LE, except WE face them first.

There will NEVER be remedy. EVER. It is a maxim of law that every wrong SHALL have remedy. They will enact a law. Scotus will shoot it down so they will enact a new law which scotus will shoot down AD INFINITUM. The ONLY way we will ever have remedy is for scotos to PERMANANTLY NULLIFY the immunity of ANY JUDGE, ANY LAWYER, ANY MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE any time they enact a law that WILLFULLY and EGREGIOUSLY defies either the constitution or prior supreme court rulings. They are INFERIOR and are BOUND by the supreme court and cannot chose to ignore them but THEY DO because... THERE IS NO REMEDY.

@RandyBeretta-db5bg

Ай бұрын

✨⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐✨👍

@rogerwood5228

Ай бұрын

SCOTUS can't unilaterally do that. Something like that would require legislation, and I would argue such legislation in itself would be unconstitutional.

@markmanning2921

Ай бұрын

@@rogerwood5228 Based on what would it be unconstitutional? Anyone who breaks the law is subject TO the law. Nobody has titles of nobility and nobody has EXTRA protections. Qualified immunity should only exist when you QUALIFY for it and stepping outside the bounds of your office and executing powers NOT delegated should disqualify you.

@rogerwood5228

Ай бұрын

@@markmanning2921 this is not the forum to explain in the necessary detail why, but suffice to say, the constitution does not outline a process to criminalize duly elected legislative bodies engaged in their privilege to create law. To threaten imprisonment for debating and passing a law would run afoul to the guarantee of a republican form of government outlined by the constitution in that a member would not truly be able to represent their respective constituents out of fear of criminal penalty. While lawmakers can be advised to the potential constitutional invalidity of a law, they have the sole prerogative, and therfore qualified immunity, in its creation and passing through the regulatory process of debate and voting. It then can go upon a myriad avenues to reach judicial review for which a law can be challenged on its constitutional legitimacy.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people.." (William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 =2nd ed. 1829)

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

And then came Scalia and Clarence the Clown, who said infringements are constitutionally permissible in Heller and Bruen.

Second amendment is not about self-defense only You guys need to get it straight

@lochnesswes1

Ай бұрын

The core principle and purpose of the second amendments text is to preserve the right of self-defense by whatever means necessay

Card carrying members of the here from Minnesota. Love what you folks are doing so much!! Keep up the good fight!

I'm so sick of this arguing. The 2A is the shortest and simplest amendment. There can be no confusion about exactly what it means. But the constitution itself contains EXACTLY the remedy gun banners wish for: write a NEW amendment which modifies (or erases) the 2A. They should either DO THAT (which, of course, would never succeed), or SHUT UP!

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

SCROTUS doesn't even respect what the 2A means, yet you demand lower courts abide by it, even though SCROTUS said infringements are totally fine in Heller and Bruen.

Good Evening from Corrupt Illinois. Thanks for the update and everything you all are doing for us.

Using tradition, text and history of the 2nd amendment, that would also deem that the law about felons in possession is unconstitutional and illegal

The Uvalde shooter DID NOT have an assault weapon. He had an AR15 which does not meet the definition of "assault weapon".

@dwwolf4636

Ай бұрын

Sigh. Assault Rifle has a fixed technical definition. Assault Weapon is a nebulous term thought up by gun banners which varies from state to state, sometimes even including SA handguns and sometimes not. It generally refers to SA rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine plus one or more design features from a list, generally consisting of a pistol grip, barrel shroud, fore grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, and several more possiblities. Ofcourse the term is meant to conflate the full auto capable Assault Rifle with a normal SA weapon.

@scottsatterthwaite4073

Ай бұрын

@@dwwolf4636 Plug both terms into Google / Wikipedia. The Anti-gunners are doing a good job of blurring the lines. We (the pro-2A side) need to stop using their terminology when referring to common rifles. It doesn't serve us well in the long run.

@tyrannosapienlex

Ай бұрын

Politicians cause more death than any OTHER weapon. We the People need to sack up, muster up, and ENACT "Politician Control," again.

Thanks Hannah! Hopefully these judges start to recognize Bruen and what it means for the 2A!

It is "Blood out of a STONE", in fact the 2nd Amendment states that the population has the right to carry fire arms.

In political parlance, they call it, “Nuance”. Massachusetts brief was full of Nuance.

@mcpig3240

Ай бұрын

You misspelled NONSENSE Sir. 😁

Everyone gets this debate wrong. It's either constitutional carry or slavery, choose.

I have a front door to protect my home and family from burglers and bears. Does the fact that neither have tested my front door mean I do not need a front door?

You will never defeat tyranny in a Court room. If that was possible, the declaration of independence would not exist. That is the proof. That Tierney cannot be defeated in a Court room.

@garyradtke3252

Ай бұрын

I don't know what a quart room is so you may be right.

@raass233

Ай бұрын

@@garyradtke3252 pretty sure a quart room and tierney are a group of letters used to avoid an algorithm, while still communicating successfully.

@jamesherron9969

Ай бұрын

@@raass233 You are correct. If you use them words all together, the algorithm will remove it and close my account.

Hannah in Rhode Island we have a similar saying you can't get blood from a Stone.

@hannahhill2781

Ай бұрын

Oh I like that.

The militia clause is important for at least one reason. The militia clause indicates that the people have a right to arms particularly suitable for military/militia use including but not limited to pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

@rogerwood5228

Ай бұрын

Anything and everything that a man can conjure, we should be able to own. It's absurd this government attempt for the monopoly of force.

Tell them to stop bringing any cases about banning anything with gun laws or any weapons cases not to be infringed upon. Every case were going to throw out. U need to restore the rights of those that haven't committed a violent felony or passed 20 years and they have not committed a violent felony. Also not allowed to bring any charge against someone protecting themselves or others

Excellent video. Clear, concise, and humorous. Thank you!

When Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Guns. Be an Outlaw.

So, the states are looking at SCOTUS saying, "We'll do whatever we want. Watcha gonna do bout it?" So, SCOTUS, what ARE you going to do about it? Words aren't cutting it.

So basically "There's no historical analog because the people would not let us do authoritarianism." lol

@Talon19

Ай бұрын

Except there is plenty of authoritarianism in history; more so in the past than now.

The Second Amendment just as the remaining "Bill of Rights" specifically and unambiguously states that the government has NO authority to impose laws or regulate the people's right to keep and bear arms.

@Bartonfink3434

Ай бұрын

Truth!

Very clear and coherent. And cogent. Appreciated.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

@tyrannosapienlex

Ай бұрын

Gun Rights: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED Means that... Gun Laws: SHALL NOT BE OBEYED

@DaveSmith-cp5kj

Ай бұрын

@@tyrannosapienlex This exactly. More gun owners need to stop being fudds about it. NFA circles in particular. Like remember how people actually sent in their wipes rather than just going to the hardware store?

Thanks for a great presentation. Interest balancing requires the judge to be omniscient and determine what decision is going to save more lives, reduce more crimes, and lead to a better outcome. No one can do that. That is just stupid. But People are stupid.

Put together seamlessly and informatively. Subscribed

Thank you very much NAGR for fighting the state of Massachusetts' inept Lawmakers (NOT ALL but most) and judges who have a better word salad vocabulary than Kamala Harris. Now I head to the link to donate!! It would be nice to see every firearm owning individual not only in this state but across the nation donate to fight this and other fights that are ongoing and that will be forthcoming because we know the anti-gunners are not going to stop with their attempt to ban all firearms until only criminals have them. Once again, Thank you !!!

Oh… if you would provide as many updates as you can on this case I would be grateful! Thanks again!

Really appreciate the thorough update! Good work! I’ll join!

@Tritamer

Ай бұрын

And….. joined!

Thank you for the video and for fighting for Americans. The “bag of rocks” description seems very appropriate.

Thanks for the Update, Hannah!

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." - Robert Heinlein

It’s supposed to be self defense FROM A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT

8:31 I'm at work so i had to physically resist the urge to stand up yell "AMEN" with my fist in the air.

One thing I've found is that it appears that this "protections the constitution guarantees against the government" doesnt include the judicial branch... they are.. for sure... above the law.

Thanks for the update, Hannah!

Thank you for all you do!!!

Bravo, Hannah!! A fun, informative analysis video, performed so well by a true Southern Belle! I love your way of destroying the specious arguments of the leftists with just enough cynicism and humor to make legal "stuff" entertaining. New subscriber and I'm heading back over to the contribution page to keep funding the fight!

Thank you! What you’re doing is so very important!

@barfo281

Ай бұрын

You mean gaslighting you?

Excellent work!!!

That Southern Bell drawl had me convinced from the beginning. You just keep that up and hopefully they will surrender. You honestly did a good job conveying the core of the argument even if I was slightly distracted lol.

Thanks for the update

Thank You, For A Fantastic, Video. And, Have A Groovy Day.

Spot on.

RIGHT ON, DARLING! RIGHT ON!

Thanks for your hard work

We here in Rhode Island will say a prayer For May 16th

The revolutionary war didn't start over tea or taxes. Although they were American grievances. It started when the British attempted to disarm the colonists at Lexington and Concorde Massachusetts. Which makes Massachusetts' draconian gun laws a national embarrassment.

Praying real hard 🙏

Amen!

Every gun law prior to 1800 should be null and void. Body armor has a rating LV4 is available and covers most rifles.

Everyone first refined the terms, if they call common use "popularity" we should stop call it the bill of rights and call it what it is "basic human rights"

9th circuit is ignoring scotus too. Sure would like to see them off the bench.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Thank you for being

What was and is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment in dealing with a present or future tyranny acting un color of law?

Ahh, the voice of sanity !

12:22 you basically nailed that one. They were ordered to stand down and now they want to use this as a excuse? Depravity knows no bounds.

Is that Slippin Jimmy? Give him a bone he’ll go away…

Awesome review!

The English once thought their gov't was big and powerful enough to impose their will and disarm the people of Mass and were put down, now Mass state is about to repeat that bit of history.

Definition of an arm-anything that can be used either offensively or defensively. Anything

The ultimate argument for having a firearm for self defense, is the very reason that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution - - that is, for the Citizen's defense against a government that has, or even potentially will eliminate our constitutional rights and become an oppressor. I believe that this is recognized amongst the majority of gun owners, but it is rarely stated with the fear of being made to sound like a revolutionary proclamation.

I have had several confrontations & I feel much better & have more options than the time I was unarmed Sic Semper Tyrannis