"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless." - Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)

@arcellgreen4754

26 күн бұрын

❤❤❤

@jimrustle643

26 күн бұрын

BASED and gunpilled

@froggy0162

26 күн бұрын

Not sure how many mass murders with fully automatic weapons were being carried out in the 1800s...

@brianbatie6650

26 күн бұрын

No one is guilty or lawless, until they decide to become so. Before they do, it seems that the extreme gun nuts want them to have access to the heaviest of military hardware, so when they do decide to become "guilty of lawless", they will have the most deadly means to do so.

@ArminiusSage

26 күн бұрын

…great quote. Here’s one of mine. *If now our freedoms depend on the conduct of the guilty; it’s time we stand up be guilty as one”*

Make our guns illegal and we’ll just call them undocumented 😂

@ChefDuane

27 күн бұрын

Wow, I like that!! Well done. I'm stealing it!

@brianhillis3701

27 күн бұрын

My ar15 identifies as a 9 iron.😊

@davidbegor8709

27 күн бұрын

What guns. I had a boating accident years ago aaannndd!!! 🫤

@davidhernandez9985

27 күн бұрын

You have to have a sense of because what's left is how the trajectory judicially this country is going. Especially Amy Coney Barrett, she appears is going to leftists.?

@tuts40

26 күн бұрын

I’m stealing that line!

They should read and uphold our Constitutional Rights as written and given. PERIOD

@baomao7243

27 күн бұрын

Constitutional rights are ubiquitous… …where available.

@Grunttamer

27 күн бұрын

The rights aren’t given they were endowed by our creator and the constitution just enumerates them

@Cj1985_GT

27 күн бұрын

You godamn right. PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!!

@dustywillis79

27 күн бұрын

Yeah there's nothing "vague" but the 2a

@husher5142

27 күн бұрын

@@baomao7243 not really the intent of 2nd amendment is to affirm the ability to rise up against the government should the people need to.

It is beyond time for SCOTUS to publish a judgement that ceases all of these unconstitutional anti gun laws in all courts.

@Elite02k

27 күн бұрын

Unfortunately all of the unconstitutional laws were passed individually, so it's gotta take individual rulings to negate and reverse them.

@JuztBillz

27 күн бұрын

Agreed. I live in Colorado and they’ve banned magazines over 15rds since 2013 11 freaking years ago

@crossbones80

27 күн бұрын

They did; it's in The Constitution and it's The Second Amendment. How are states' laws trumpin The Consitution? Unless the secede from the Union?

@_JimmyBeGood

27 күн бұрын

They can’t do that. They are there to strike down laws and regulations that are passed by politicians. You need to vote out the politicians to stop this. Now if you think that’s too difficult then you can blame the voters that vote for these corrupt democrats politicians. That would be a certain type of human that does that. You can fix that by repealing the 19th amendment.

@_JimmyBeGood

27 күн бұрын

You need to repeal the 19th amendment or forget it.

Shall not be infringed! The United States Constitution limits government ,not the citizenry!

@chrisKyle7274

27 күн бұрын

Exactly

Look, the way I see it, if the law and the courts that oversee it can ignore their own rules, we should be able to as well. Screw all this 2 tiered BS.

@gmwhaley0961

27 күн бұрын

A Fuckin men!!!! That’s the way I see it

@JohnDoe-lk3oy

26 күн бұрын

You can ignore any statute code or legislation. They are not LAW. The Courts are not Lawful because they compell consent

@brianbatie6650

26 күн бұрын

Go for it, Dude. You can eff around and find out that the 2-tiered system is quite real, has been ever since beginning, and you ain't on the "good" tier.

Chevron is dead.

@breakerprepper

27 күн бұрын

THATS RIGHT!!🎉

@baomao7243

27 күн бұрын

Ding dong, Chevron is dead

@elwap0

27 күн бұрын

I hope so....

@marthaandrelemazingcrafts7582

27 күн бұрын

Including FDA and their attack on natural doctors, if they actually back off

@thetrutha2177

27 күн бұрын

Unfortunately, it won't stop these domestic terrorists from enforcing their civil rights violations on everything from guns to smog.

I’m going to do the same thing California is doing. Interpreting the second amendment how I wanted interpreted.

@golfnb28

26 күн бұрын

There's only one interpretation, "Shall not be infringed"

F this. The 2nd amendment shall NOT be Infringed !

@skwissgaar_skwigelf_kdz3251

27 күн бұрын

i dont get people saying that in the comments all the time, our rights HAVE already been infringed.'We the people'' let it happen. our forefathers would be stacking bodies by now , and all i see is people in denial yelling at a cloud tryn to make it rain freedom.

@chokocat9064

27 күн бұрын

@@skwissgaar_skwigelf_kdz3251 This is exactly why we need public schools. Living in an uneducated country has repercussions.

@poohbear1647

27 күн бұрын

@@skwissgaar_skwigelf_kdz3251we are a victim Of our own success . People are fat and comfortable (me too). 2 generations have come and went since a draft, and now young adults can’t phantom the possibility. They will agree with the government for anything, just don’t make them put down their phones.

@chokocat9064

27 күн бұрын

Das, do you know what the first four words of the second amendment? Usually the more important words come at the beginning of a sentence. Maybe the first four words qualify the last four words. Are you as solid in defending the first four as you are the last?

@CptJistuce

27 күн бұрын

​@@chokocat9064know the middle eight words too! And how grammar works. The entire sentence states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It does not place limits on the situations under which the right may be exercised, although it does offer a justification for the right's enshrinement in law. And "well-regulated militia" does not mean "folks in an organized fighting force". All able-bodied men constitute the militia, and well-regulated means roughly that they know what the heck they're doing. It says, in plain english, that since the country's security is dependant on it's citizens knowing how to use weapons, that the people's right to own and use those weapons is explicitly protected.

Why aren't we holding these politicians criminally liable for these frivolous laws they pass. They don't have their constituents support. They should be held accountable.

@wesleyturner1979

27 күн бұрын

In what way can they be held accountable”accountable”? In Ca, if you are anti gun, you get reelected and or advance your political career.

@thedude883

26 күн бұрын

​@wesleyturner1979 you said it all right there... "in California"... Land of Looney Leftists! 😵‍💫

@thedude883

26 күн бұрын

Yt censoring my comments again... leftist hacks!

@thedude883

26 күн бұрын

​@@wesleyturner1979you said it all... "in California"!

@thedude883

26 күн бұрын

Land of Leftists! 😵‍💫

In other cases, they claim the mags are not protected because they aren't "arms." Here, they're arguing they can be banned because they are dangerous and unusual arms. They need to make up their mind about the nonsense they're going to spew.

Why won’t scotus just say constitutional carry is nationwide

@keelsmac01

27 күн бұрын

They did in 2022! The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the rights of gun owners to carry a loaded weapon in public, ruling that the 2nd Amendment right to “bear arms” overrides laws in New York and California that restrict who may legally take guns when they leave home.Jun 23, 2022

@Yargoogargoo

27 күн бұрын

@@keelsmac01link to this? Nothing has changed but I would love to be proven wrong

@chlebowg

27 күн бұрын

They don't have spine to. They keep kicking the can down the road.

@mlo5083

26 күн бұрын

Mike sorry, I was replying to @kahunal below. Did not implicate scotus. They are the good guys. LOL Wrong button.

@brianbatie6650

26 күн бұрын

Because it isn't. States have long held the right to regulate arms. Many cities have had "no guns allowed" laws, like Dodge City and Trinidad City, people like Wyatt Earp, William Barclay "Bat" Masterson and others like him enforced those laws.

CA conveniently forgot how magazine ban cases were GVR'd by the supreme court right after Bruen

@MarvelousSeven

27 күн бұрын

They're just throwing a tantrum b!tch fit.

@cagneybillingsley2165

27 күн бұрын

it's ok, only idjits follow the law in a rogue state, ie democrats

@BobSpiffy1

27 күн бұрын

They know and remember. They just know that the current DOJ is not going to stop them. This is the reason that we need a new administration. Enforcement is within this part of the administrative branch. Past time to clear house. Clinton administration appointees are at the top, reinforced by Obama’s. Low level prosecutors are the next wave under the current leadership.

@commies.are.not.people

27 күн бұрын

No they didn't, they don't care

@thetrutha2177

27 күн бұрын

They didn't forget that these domestic terrorists simply Don't care

Who are the people advocating gun laws when they only apply to law abiding citizens

@spaceracer23

27 күн бұрын

Fascists..... and people too ignorant or, let's be honest, too dumb to know what fascism is.

@Perceptual_Reality

27 күн бұрын

People that are scared gun ownership will hinder their ability to control the law abiding citizen when they start putting their boot on our neck.

@arcellgreen4754

26 күн бұрын

We are talking about politicians!🤷‍♂️

@awakened5574

25 күн бұрын

Right! But Biden has been arming ILLEGALS and they do not have any rights in the U.S. But there is NOT a court in this world has brought this issue out in the press!!!!!!!

@arcellgreen4754

23 күн бұрын

@@jds3068 dem and lib!

So, a poorly written Court Opinion rips a large hole in all of the 2A progress made in the past 10 years.

@ZboeC5

27 күн бұрын

The 9th circus is the most overturned court in the US, they are always wrong until proven right.

@chokocat9064

27 күн бұрын

Do you mean the one from 2008? Kind of more than ten years ago though.

@ChickenPermissionOG

27 күн бұрын

it takes 66% of the states to bring up a change to the constitution and 75% of the states to make it so, not the SCOTUS.

So the law abiding will be at a disadvantage when defending themselves against those above the law and criminals. Pure BS. Just makes all of us less safe.

@chrisschweitzer8707

27 күн бұрын

In Blue cities and states the criminals ARE above the law.

@poindextersheelturn436

26 күн бұрын

How are they going to be disadvantaged? Do what the cartel do, have them and not report it.

@kahunaal1631

26 күн бұрын

@@poindextersheelturn436 not in NJ. If you are stopped PD will know you if you legal carry by your plates. And if you have an over 10 mag, off to jail you go.

@poindextersheelturn436

26 күн бұрын

@@kahunaal1631 Glad I live in a free state, also, how will they know if you went to virginia or wherever and get a 15 mag?? Yall give police too much credit.

@kahunaal1631

26 күн бұрын

@@poindextersheelturn436 I’ll just carry a spare. Not worth it in NJ. The State hates gun owners, trickles down straight through the State Police. Awful.

It’s all b.s.! Control, control, and even still more control.

@baomao7243

27 күн бұрын

I call it “illusion of control.” Basically it’s the fraud that politicians sell to grabbers to raise money (while grabbers are foolish enough to believe that it works…because they’re told it works in their echo chamber).

@calista1280

27 күн бұрын

That's what THE GREAT RESET 2030 AGENDA IS ALL ABOUT! Enslave us all under Communist Dictatorship...🤬☠️

@ChickenPermissionOG

27 күн бұрын

And the people continue to do nothing while their god given rights are taken slowly away year by year.

@baomao7243

26 күн бұрын

@@ChickenPermissionOG What are you proposing ?

New York does whatever it wants and figures it will be years before it goes to court.

@jefferyshall

27 күн бұрын

As does California. This will NEVER END because whatever the Supreme Court says about a law doesn’t matter. Once one of their laws is struck down THEY JUST MAKE A NEW ONE which takes 5+ years to get struck does and then they just create a new one and start over! Until SCOTUS stops f’ing around and just makes a CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE UNAMBIGUOUS ALL ENCOMPASSING RULING this will continue in perpetuity and the people will NEVER ACTUAL HAVE THEIR RIGHTS!!!

@munkymyk

26 күн бұрын

California is the same way, the one party rule legislation will pump out one unconstitutional law after another kNOWING that they are unconstitutional, yet passing them anyway because they are well aware that once they go into affect, it takes years for them to crawl through the courts.

Good Evening from Corrupt Illinois and thanks for the update.

@markgray8360

27 күн бұрын

100percent Illinois is a communist corrupt state.

So really what will the Supreme Court rule? We WILL NEVER KNOW!! The Supreme Court Merry-go-round KEEPS SPINNING.

@tacticalmattfoley

27 күн бұрын

You won't figure it out from this video, either......too complicated, too much legalese.

@mixsterB

27 күн бұрын

@@tacticalmattfoleyglad I wasn’t the only one

@Pro_2A_1776

27 күн бұрын

I thought the video broke it down well and tied everything together.

@Bodhi1satva

27 күн бұрын

Job security for Lawyers!

@Pro_2A_1776

27 күн бұрын

@@Bodhi1satva well there are a bunch of lawyers out there fighting for your second amendment rights. While we sit on the couch and comment on videos...

How long do we keep having to do this back and for bs until the Supreme Court will finally step in and do the right thing???

@tyler20901

27 күн бұрын

It’s to late for that. It’s a matter of time before we see all gun owners become either a criminal or gun less

It is clear in the Second Amendment. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. " Thus making the ATFE unconstitutional.

Didn't the Court just rule that agencies can't make "rules" laws without the consent of Congress?

I really wish you would add a bookmark for frequent visitors to be able to fast forward to the actual update you are making the video about since most of the time you spend up to half of the video just recapping everything we already know.

@lolk4530

27 күн бұрын

Then he wouldn't get that sweet sweet watch time that he's really doing all this for

@williamnickerson2721

27 күн бұрын

I agree, love the channel but I often skip update videos until I feel there’s been enough that the recapping will be all “new” information and enjoy the video more. I’d love time bookmarks so I can stay up to date fully

@craiglieberman

27 күн бұрын

And it’s really frustrating.

@Yoda052

27 күн бұрын

So true, usually after the first 5 minutes of random “gun apocalypse” conversation, I just give up and move on to the next video. It’s incredibly tedious… in fact, why am I still subscribed?

@Hey_OverHere

27 күн бұрын

Agreed. I often turn away because of this.

Courts should always lean toward the greater liberty

...shall not be infringed...

No one in CA is abiding by the mag bans, everyone is using the 30 rd mags. Quick trip to Nevada and you can get anything you want.

@checkityhold

27 күн бұрын

Ditto in Washington State via Idaho

@forehead949

27 күн бұрын

Allegedly of course…

@brawndothethirstmutilator9848

27 күн бұрын

That’s all good and well until you have to use your firearm in self defense and they throw the book at you for your magazine. Or just catch you somewhere with more than 10, convict you, and strip you of your 2A rights.

@calista1280

27 күн бұрын

Unless you get a good lawyer and judge who consider it an infringement on our Rights!​@brawndothethirstmutilator9848

@LoneWolfRedd

27 күн бұрын

🤫

They need to clean up their own house before they insist on cleaning mine.

You know truthfully it's not up to them whether they think that they may win in a court case or not they have a right to have that court case and they're denying him that.

When a court shows it doesn't care about the Constitution why would one think they care about their own rules?

Clear as mud. Just the way lawyers like it.

A 30 round mag is not a high capacity mag. It’s actually a standard capacity mag. It is standard issue.

@Stain5150

27 күн бұрын

No, sir, it's not. 20 is.

@Huntinghogs

27 күн бұрын

@@Stain5150 I guess the Army thought I was special.

@chrisKyle7274

27 күн бұрын

"Reduced capacity" Magazine are 10rnds

@Stain5150

26 күн бұрын

@Huntinghogs In 1964, the year it came out was issued with 20 mags. It wasn't until 1968 the 30s mags came out. But a 50 round drum has a standard capacity of 50 even if it only holds 49 rounds.

@Huntinghogs

26 күн бұрын

@@Stain5150 yes. When did the military issue drum mags?

We shall not comply Like they say you shall not have high capacity mags

@chrisKyle7274

27 күн бұрын

Standard capacity is 30rnds. Reduced capacity is 10rnds. Please use these terms accordingly.

@pewpewlife8210

27 күн бұрын

@@chrisKyle7274 first you are not Chris Kyle. Second if you learned this to read the text above says…. “THEY SAY”

@chrisKyle7274

27 күн бұрын

@@pewpewlife8210 ????? Angry much?

My fellow Americans. The time is now. There is no longer a “wait and see” to determine when the government goes tyrannical. They already have.

2a shall not be infringed

@brianbatie6650

26 күн бұрын

You forgot this part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

@jackiedunn9404

26 күн бұрын

@@brianbatie6650 no I did not forget

@brianbatie6650

26 күн бұрын

@@jackiedunn9404 So that qualifier "well regulated" just doesn't matter? It is apparent that any regulations are anathema to gun misanthropes...

Time to start recalls of the CA judges …

Here's some language they should use and it isn't a judge's OPINION...... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

TY A.S for all your 2A News

Just leave CA, let it fall.

@richardperez4747

27 күн бұрын

Stfu. You gotta stop the cancer before it spreads.

@MOE13576

27 күн бұрын

Nah they should stay and fix it ...we don't want any cali people moving into other states

@jimmybutler1379

27 күн бұрын

OR MAKE THE CITIZENS STAND FOR OUR RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS THAT GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TAKE OUR RIGHTS AWAY FROM OUR CITIZENS THAT ARE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS !...

@wadem539

27 күн бұрын

I left CA and NEVER looked back at it in my rear view mirror. Got fed up with the communist State.

@housegoth

27 күн бұрын

That is an awful idea, there are far too many strategic resources in the state to let it go.

ORIGINAL INTENT IS MOST IMPORTANT. “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.

@chrisKyle7274

27 күн бұрын

Yes!

Thank you for doing all you are doing to keep this country a Republic under the Constitution

IMHO, I refuse to follow any law that is knowingly unconstitutional by a lay person myself! If the powers to be continuously release dangerous criminals I will protect myself accordingly!! I so glad I live in Texas and regardless of the laws I've been carrying concealed for over 3 decades!!

Yea, 8.4K +1 to comment and 785th to comment! Great update! I am much more involved because of your updates! Thank you!

Thanks brother.!

Gorsuch is sending clear shots towards the Ninth Circuit. “Some judges expressed concern that the prevailing two-step test had become “just window dressing for judicial policymaking.” Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F. 4th 1087, 1148 (CA9 2021) (en banc) (Bumatay, J., dissenting). To them, the inquiry worked as a “black box regime” that gave a judge broad license to support policies he “[f]avored” and discard those he disliked. Ibid. How did the government fare under that regime? In one circuit, it had an “undefeated, 50-0 record.” Id., at 1167, n. 8 (VanDyke, J., dissenting).”

Fuck the courts.

@ChickenPermissionOG

27 күн бұрын

just words, will there be any action?

@Iseevideo101

27 күн бұрын

@@ChickenPermissionOG it's a statement of frustration

What happened to "Upon taking office, public officials affirm an oath as evidence of dedication to the Constitution. The official can be prosecuted, impeached, recalled, or otherwise expelled from office for violating his or her oath”??? Why isn't this being enforced???

@davidbegor8709

24 күн бұрын

@@hjasinski exactly!

A case needs to be brought such that the scotus is forced to define the difference between a 'right' and a government granted 'privilege'.

@tightsnatch7485

26 күн бұрын

Govt has no delegation of authority to issue privileges, so our rights trump them Everytime.

@curly__3

26 күн бұрын

@@tightsnatch7485 ... You're missing the point.

I'm not sure how clear and conclusive became "vague" because they don't like simple, clear legislation.

@brianhillis3701

27 күн бұрын

Lawyers ensuring there will always be lawyers.

Constitution is the only permission I need. Eff em

Thank you for the update!

Nice report. I detected no annoying booms in the sound track. I love it.

What possible analog is there for banning magazines over 10 rounds? There's nothing limiting how many musket balls one could carry. No limit on the amount of black powder that can be used per shot. No limits on caliber or barrel length.

@MaksymLazirko

27 күн бұрын

They had repeating rifles and multi-barrel machine guns well before the constitution was written. This was never regulated

Thank you for the updates

None of the circus cases amount to anything.0-14 since bruen.Also,how many losses since Heller?

They should have just let Rahimi get away with everything and let him out of jail. I'm sorry, but this is what happens otherwise.

Thank you for the update 🇺🇸🙏🏽!

Thanks again

It's like the court of the 9th speaks a different language. They have little understanding of the simple words they are supposed to adhere to the most.

Great Report. Thank You. AS 😊

Waiting for the video covering Chevron getting the freedom boot!

Good to know! Language in a contract or law can be interpreted in so many different ways. Keep it simple and to the point.

Please keep the information and analysis coming.

They keep basing gun laws on the behavior of inner city residents who possess firearms illegally.

@HuChing-ob4kk

26 күн бұрын

No they dont.they are basing it on a PLAN they have that requires you to be disarmed

Will you be giving us a breakdown of the chevron decision soon ? I am really curious to how we go forward and defeat these unconstitutional executive orders and rules .

clear as mud!!

Thanks!

@ArmedScholar

24 күн бұрын

Thank you Robert!

The 9th circuit needs to be completely replaced.

Great summary of where we are at.

as soon as I heard about how the Rahimi Opinion changed Bruen I knew California would use it to justify any kind of Ban or Restrictions.

@mariop8576

27 күн бұрын

Yeah, Rahimi was a disaster. Why anyone would argue this case is in a court of law is beyond me. That blew up in our faces and it is not even what we are trying to accomplish here. We need to be smarter.

@jimmybutler1379

27 күн бұрын

THEY THINK ! MAKING US ALL CRIMINALS THEY WILL GET WHAT THEY CALLING US ALL CITIZENS ; WHILE GIVING OUR TAXATION MONEY TO EVERY ONE BUT TO THE USA CITIZENS ! OPINION ONLY ! KEEPING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RIGHTS FROM TYRANTS !...

What does a guy have to do to “requalify” for 2A’s after false accusation, bad lawyering, and death (cancer) of the complainant?

Thank you for this 2A update.

Our sheriff doesn’t uphold the mag laws, even went on the news and said California laws don’t fly here😂

Good evening from corrupt New Jersey.

It’s obvious that these Judges need to relieved of their duties and or disbarred!

The only problem I've ever had with restricting Firearms access to people with a restraining order is a restraining order is often handed out like prizes from a Cracker Jack box. If there is a valid reason for a restraining order, the person should have to make their case against the person while they're in court instead of having an ex parte or a summary judgment against them or they don't even frequently know that they've had a restraining order placed against them. That's the unconstitutional part of the restraining orders.

Thanks a lot, Robert🤬

Fuel for, you know, the thing!

Just set large capacity mags aside until shit hits the fan and you have them for protection

Thank you very much

Main difference is one is after someone is charged with a dv crime and the other is rights of law abiding citizens either way after a person finishes their time/ punishment all rights should be auto restored

@VoFALT

27 күн бұрын

Change your pfp

@jjmckay6man1

27 күн бұрын

@@VoFALT I find your V offensive change yours.

@jameslong1644

27 күн бұрын

@@VoFALT why should he? Do you know what it actually means?

@brawndothethirstmutilator9848

27 күн бұрын

@jameslong1644, It means he’s an edge-lord that thinks it’s clever to hide behind ancient Buddhist and Hindu iconography to signal his enthusiasm for Austrian Painters.

@jjmckay6man1

27 күн бұрын

@@brawndothethirstmutilator9848 or he may be Hindu or Buddhist. Go get your electrolites. Commie.

Sooooo….once again nothing has changed….

Millions of undocumented magazines. What are we to do?

@HuChing-ob4kk

26 күн бұрын

...buy more

@brianbatie6650

26 күн бұрын

Give them documents.

Thanks Anthony

Thanks

I'd just like to know... for us Californians... WHY, I ask you, WHY aren't we MARCHING YET?!?! WHY aren't we standing outside of the State Capital right now... ARMED... to let Gov. Newsome know that we will NOT go quietly into the night?!?!?! 💓🤍💙

Thank you for this great information. Triple

“But as we have explained, our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation distinguishes citizens who have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others from those who have not. The conclusion that focused regulations like the surety laws are not a historical analogue for a broad prohibitory regime like New York’s does not mean that they cannot be an appropriate analogue for a narrow one.” Rahimi. While I am sure the Ninth Circuit will get it wrong, I am equally certain that the pending Illinois cases will go against magazine and “assault weapon” bans.

How about all stats include any and ALL crimes involving shooting over the past 30 years include how many rounds were shot from a single weapon in a single magazine. How many in 30 -40 years had more than 10 rounds shot from a single magazine and were continuous without pause. Real info should be used. It would have to also show that the issue is a large majority of all deaths can be directly attributed to a large magazine and previous conditions were met. If you use general info, then any violent crime against an American by one illegal in one to many and all illegals must be deported to save one American!

You are exceptional as a true scholar. Thanks for

If my guns become outlaws, then I will become an outlaw...

Now we need the Supreme Court to clarify if Constitutional Rights are "Laws" or not. Because the second amendment not being a law trapped in amber is irrelevant because rights in most readings are not laws. They are principles that pre-date and provide foundation for all other laws.

Its so simple. Shall not be infringed.

If these judges can be voted out we need their names

Maybe Rahimi would allow a ban on standard (aka high) ownership by really bad people, but not by normal people. For example no high capacity magazines if under a domestic abuse order or DUI probation.

"Unlimited" does not mean "nonexistent." The 9th Circus has no problem embracing any assault on 2A.

The courts (SCOTUS) was never intended to hold this kind of law making/defining power in the first place. No one alive today agreed to ruled by the SCOTUS, however Jury Nullification, is the ultimate arbiter of the law.

The SJC could have ended all this nonsense years ago, but they didn't. If they come out and say that all guns are protected, what else is there to do. It is called Job Security.

For the Algorisms Thank You Anthony 👍😎👍

Maybe my brain is just overheated from working outside but I can't track WTH he is talking about. MARKER BOARD for us dummies! Too many names being repeated.

@go4ride

27 күн бұрын

The short answer is that the Supreme Court just ruled that the government didn't have to have a perfect historical analog to impose a restriction. In Rahimi, the Court said that there were plenty of precedents even dating to colonial times where people the government thought were dangerous could be disarmed without a criminal conviction. There wasn't anything way back then about domestic restraining laws, but the Court held that that wasn't critical to Rahimi. It only mattered that the general principle of disarming people who had not been convicted of a crime had been long established. So the 9th Circuit is running with that concept and saying that just as there doesn't have to be a perfect historical analog to disarm someone without a criminal conviction, neither does there have to be a perfect historical analog to ban certain weapons, in this case, an otherwise lawful firearm, but one with a magazine more than 10 rounds. I don't know what firearms they are talking about, but the point is, the Court held that the Second Amendment isn't unlimited.

@AlphanumericCharacters

27 күн бұрын

@@go4ride excellent breakdown. Thank you very much. Curious. Do you think that private citizens should be able to own any weapon? Someone like Bill Gates can easily afford to buy an F22 armed with bombs and missiles. Or set up artillery on a hill overlooking a city. If you don’t think we should be allowed to own such weapons then isn’t there a limit to the 2nd amendment? If the second amendment is indeed limited then we need to draw a clear line as to what that limit is. To digress, the left will argue that the founders didn’t imagine machine guns. However, there were private citizens in possession of the most powerful war machines of the day. Warships. Privateers legally operated during the revolution. To my knowledge once the USA was established there was no law passed against private citizens operating these vessels. My opinion is that the Bill of Rights are individual rights. I have a right to keep and bear arms as an individual. As an individual it is not my role to fight an invading army. I would take my private weapons and join a militia. So I do think that is where we can reasonably draw the line. Small arms. Small arms with unlimited capacity. I do not believe any law should be allowed that limits the effectiveness of any small arm. I think that is reasonable and consistent with the constitution. More importantly consistent with the concept of individual rights.

@go4ride

25 күн бұрын

@@AlphanumericCharacters There's a lot to consider here and I think you touch on many essential points. I'm not sure how early on there were privateers. The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to grant "letters of marque", without which I suspect a privateer would have been considered a pirate. I can't imagine privateers took on too many Men-o-war, but rather were "commerce raiders." Either way, from the beginning of the country, therer was the principle established of the government's permission needed to engage in private violence. The point about Bill Gates is more relevent than you might think. It's not Bill Gates with an F-22. It's Bill Gates with 5,000 "security guards", much like the Pinkerton "detectives" of the 19th Century. This is pretty much the situation in Lebanon with a weak and ineffective "legal" goverrnment and army and a number of rich guys with private "militias", really gangs with heavy machine guns. The Washington constitution says "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men" (It would appear that Little Bobby Ferguson and Manka Dhingra haven't read that.}. It seems to me its rather vague when a "rifle and pistol club" becomes an "armed body of men." So there's more than ample historical precedent that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. The problem we have now is that there's a whole bunch of people who don't think anybody should have any guns besides the police (the very people they despise), so they fundamentally don't respect anybody's right to anything associated with firearms and they don't care about little details like the Constitution. They don't seem to grap the irony that they are just like the Southern racists of the'50's and '60's that weren't going to let a minor inconvenience like the Consitution stand in their way of denying some citizens of their rights.

@AlphanumericCharacters

25 күн бұрын

@@go4ride perhaps my use of the term “privateer” was incorrect. However, there were private vessels equipped with cannon. I do believe, as you said, their role was to attack British commerce ships. I don’t recall the “letter of marque” detail. I read about this too long ago and shouldn’t have used it as an example for that reason. I do believe my point does stand that we need to draw a clear line. We need to establish that the second amendment ends and where it does. I think the argument that some have that we should be able to own tanks because the government does and we can fight them is nonsense. For the reason that this is all question of law. If we get to the point where we can righteously start a revolution then we no longer have the rule of law which makes it a moot point. We would be dealing with a tyrannical government. The left is arguing that an AR-15 with a drum magazine is a weapon of war. That is why I would like to see a clarification that defines weapons of war versus small arms. Reasonable people working in good faith could create such a distinction. You hit the nail on the head with the comparison of the left to the Deep South. They are one and the same. I don’t really believe the modern left cares about justice. They don’t really care about the wrongs of the past. They only care about power. Power through tribalism. The left are tribalists just like the goons of the Deep South. The only reason they don’t like each other is because they are each vying for power against each other. There is no ideological difference. Unfortunately I see tribalism on the left and the right. Few in America are concerned with truth and justice. Just getting what they can by any means.

@go4ride

25 күн бұрын

@@AlphanumericCharacters I think your point about power is essentially that. You see that at play right here in Washington. A handful of leftie legislators, who would not be thought of as a "mainstream" Washigntonians" orchestrate bills through the legislature knowing that our "top 2" primary system makes it suicidal for "normal" Democrats to oppose it because they know they would get picked off from the left in the primary. Nobody Democrat dares stand up and says, "I'm not voting for this because it is techically nonsense and doesn't address out real problem." That person will get 10,000 post cards mailed to his constituency saying "Your representative voted against common sense gun law." As more and more Third World immigrants come to the US in general and to Washington State in particular who have no cultural history or technical understanding of guns and of the fundamental rights we have, they just see "Oh, that's a bad thing." and the legislatior that tried to act rationally is dead.