The founding fathers were not concerned about certain types of guns but rather certain types of government.

@BrandonLamb1

7 күн бұрын

They would have flipped tables DECADES ago, probably a century or more ago, and we all know it.

@duesing6

7 күн бұрын

@@BrandonLamb1 The founding fathers today would have made it a requirement to own one if they found out what our government is doing lately.

@RonnieEverette

7 күн бұрын

​@@duesing6bullshit 😂😂😂 yall love talking about what the founding fathers would have done.. The founding fathers wanted us to be able to own other human beings

@user-ug8nc9wu3x

7 күн бұрын

@@BrandonLamb11913 would've been the end.

@Kainis80

7 күн бұрын

@@duesing6 It is already a requirement for most men in the US, as all men that meet the definition are militia and are thereby required by the 2A to not only own one, but be well trained on it: 10 USC Chapter 12: "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

When the second amendment was written the population had military equipment.

@mattn.1310

7 күн бұрын

Exactly. The musket was the military rifle of the time and it's what we the people (the militia) and the army all used. It was the latest and greatest of the time and everyone could own them.

@Mark0003260

7 күн бұрын

This whole argument is just garbage word salading. The idea that there are "military", "militia", and "sporting" weapons was an attempt by the Miller non-decision to keep the 1934 NFA alive when they didn't have anything to back up their case. As we see today, there is virtually no difference between the weapons an army has and that of a militia. In the ME militias have rocket launchers, missiles and just about anything below modern main battle tanks.

@maxstueven1965

7 күн бұрын

The people also had Cannons and Warships despite what Biden thinks

@Wildwestwrangler

7 күн бұрын

​@@mattn.1310men of adult age were required to own a rifle and a certain amount of powder and shot

@michaeldvorak5556

7 күн бұрын

​@Wildwestwrangler all of which had to be well regulated, i.e., maintained.

The lower courts are just going to keep bouncing these cases around forever hoping they'll get their stacked scotus and never have a to address them.

@richnorman7058

7 күн бұрын

Bingo.

@chesslover8829

7 күн бұрын

Bingo!

@shareefk9039

7 күн бұрын

@@richnorman7058except thomas specifically said that if the 7th circuit sticks with there injunction in Illinois, the court will likely take up the case. So it should be quicker than previous cases. Scotus just doesnt want to seem rogue so they are forcing the lower courts into the tough decision. But it wont work and scotus will have to tap tap dat azz.

@goldenhate6649

7 күн бұрын

Oh mean, the supreme court has to choose its battles. It is one group of judges and they can only take so many cases

@Chef-vg4pu

7 күн бұрын

Bullseye!… but they’re not gonna win because Trump’s gonna be a reelected and he’s gonna get another judge on the Supreme Court and then things are gonna start moving way way fast after that…..hopefully!

"Shall not br infringed." Is a very compelling argument to prove this court's decision is actually unconstitutional.

The government has to uphold our right to bear arms. Doesn’t matter what kind of guns.

@IAMRUSTEDROOT

4 күн бұрын

Since when are our human rights Governed? I don't need the Government to tell me what my rights are. Why should any human have any rights over another? A Government who won't allow the people they are supposed to serve have "guns" but that same government has the guns. That didn't work out for the Jews very well if you study history.

@craigpennington1251

Күн бұрын

Including a Lewis 303.

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???

@snappertrx

7 күн бұрын

The People need to enforce that. Don't expect the government to police themselves.

@garyweber7139

7 күн бұрын

My answer is the old saying "the fox guards the henhouse". The unelected officials, aka the deep state is evil, homicidal, and corrupt. There are about or over a thousand alphabet agencies, some are good like the Secrete Service, the USAF, but most others like the ATF are criminal, homicidal terrorist gangs. Check out my post. tell me what you think.

@thehimself4056

7 күн бұрын

You won’t have anyone to vote for

@Zachary77

7 күн бұрын

​@@snappertrxyep, it's the DUTY of the People to hold their "representatives" accountable.

@atranimecs

7 күн бұрын

Because "states rights"

Any politician that proposes or promotes any rule or law that violates the second amendment should be dismissed from service and banned from government office for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

@aquariumdude7829

4 күн бұрын

That would violate the 1st Amendment.

@aquariumdude7829

4 күн бұрын

That's not going to happen anyway.

@SmoothLikeSilk

3 күн бұрын

​@aquariumdude7829 You're right I agree that'll never happen. But freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. Imagine if a politician said no more women's rights/civil rights openly. I'd assume that wouldn't go so smoothly nowadays

@aquariumdude7829

3 күн бұрын

@SmoothLikeSilk That's why we have elections. To vote out people we don't like. 😊

@SmoothLikeSilk

3 күн бұрын

@@aquariumdude7829 uh that's my 👉 point 👈 we don't hold the same standards for the second amendment that we do for all the others. But we have the second amendment to protect our 1st amendment. We just all seem forgot that along the way.

Stop it! Stop it! Once and for all no such thing as a assault weapon!!

Ill see yall in 10 years when my rights are no longer violated.

@bobsmith-ji2uh

7 күн бұрын

In ten years the court will be different and we still won’t have our rights.

@garyweber7139

7 күн бұрын

Yeah me too, except I might be dead. And they still might violate my right to RIP. and dig me up for an apartment building.

@teresamoore15

7 күн бұрын

An Optimist. God love 'em.

@NOOBLETK

7 күн бұрын

You better be willing to fight for them then patriot.

@michaelshapiro1543

7 күн бұрын

Won't take that long. WATCH.

Time to jail all those who pass such laws.

@NadJebrone

7 күн бұрын

Things that will never happen.

@jimmybutler1379

7 күн бұрын

THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS !...

@joshuarichard6827

7 күн бұрын

Why are you people do merciful!!

@johnb.6468

7 күн бұрын

There ought to be judicial consequences for intentionally bad legislation.

@phoenixsoulfire7436

7 күн бұрын

@@johnb.6468 political legislation

No matter what SCOTUS says to the lower courts, they are still not going to listen. There needs to be severe penalties for defying the SCOTUS ruling. Like steep fines and jail time.

@garyh1449

7 күн бұрын

Punishment by we the people comes to mind if we really want to end this BS.

@billclancy4913

7 күн бұрын

Boy do they listen when a decision goes their way...Pisses me off!

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

But that won't happen, of course.

@michaelshanahan4965

7 күн бұрын

Yes, SEVERE PENALTIES..

@richardlea818

7 күн бұрын

Maybe the Supreme Court needs an enforcement branch. Edit: My comment was sarcastic, referencing SCOTUS’s recent decision to gut the Chevron Deference. The Courts aren’t meant for any type of enforcement, only for ruling on constitutionality. It’s up to the legislative branch to make constitutional laws, and up to the executive branch to legally enforce them. There’s obviously a huge disconnect there, and my comment was meant to poke fun at that.

The can has been kicked yet again down the road…

They know the lower courts won’t do the right thing, and WILL drag it on as long as posible. That helps people rotting in jail for simply exercising a God given right how?

@jimmybutler1379

7 күн бұрын

BY IMPRISONMENT AND LAWS TO STOP OTHERS FROM TAKING UP ARMS FOR DEFENSE OF SELVES AND OUR NATION BY TYRANTS ; THAT SEEK TO BE THE ONLY ONES ARMED FOR ATTACK AND DEFENSE THAT IS HOW TYRANTS RULE !...

@chadbennett7873

7 күн бұрын

Please tell me in what verse of God's word did he mention the right to own firearms?

@jason200912

7 күн бұрын

@chadbennett7873 Ikr that phrase is kind of a controversy and joked about in the gun community. One channel made fun of the hypocrisy when all subscribers said guns are a God given natural right to humans. Then the 2nd question asked if illegal immigrants, felons, colored people should own them and the response suddenly was no longer one sided. It was pretty funny

@user-hh2tq6st8l

7 күн бұрын

@@chadbennett7873 Luke 22: He (Jesus/aka god the son) said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Jesus again was using symbolism to instruct his disciples to get ready to fend for themselves and to do what was necessary to be properly armed

@Mrree250

5 күн бұрын

@@chadbennett7873If you were a feudal peasant you’d turn in your neighbor for having a sword. “Only tha kings men can ‘Ave swords!”

If a case comes before the Supreme Court and touches 1 or more of the first 10 amendments. The Supreme Court should HAVE TO TAKE UP THE CASE!

...shall not be infringed.

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

Well, they did anyway. So what now? 😊

@newtonfirefly3584

7 күн бұрын

@@aquariumdude7829 Obvious, ignoramus !! Challenge in court as these Plaintiffs to achieve the decision, ruling as Unconstitutional, Null & Void. Simple, Period.

@BoecifusJones

4 күн бұрын

Already has been, for at least 100 years. They're Amendments, not gospel.

@aquariumdude7829

4 күн бұрын

@@newtonfirefly3584 Nobody in the real world cares what you want about anything, you psychotic. Period, period, period.

@aquariumdude7829

4 күн бұрын

@newtonfirefly3584 Take your piece of paper and stick it. 😄😆

Let the foot dragging begin....

@ericsfishingadventures4433

7 күн бұрын

And that's exactly their plan

@backfromthedead553

7 күн бұрын

Yup

@snappertrx

7 күн бұрын

They know The People will sit idly by and rely on government to police themselves. If The People don't do something about it, nothing will get done.

@Portuguese-linguica

7 күн бұрын

___________________👟

@jimmybutler1379

7 күн бұрын

BUT NEVER TELL THEM THAT JUSTICE CAN NOT BE PUT OFF TILL LATTER ! OR THEY WILL DO ALL IN THEIR POWER TO PROVE YOU WRONG ABOUT THAT !...

Way to go Justice Thomas.

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” -Alexander Hamilton

The petitioners met all criteria for a preliminary injunction. These were appropriate for SCOTUS action now. Justice delayed is justice denied. The arms protected by 2A are bearable arms suitable for service in a militia/ military. "Militaristic" arms are covered by the actual text of the amendment.

@mhxxd4

6 күн бұрын

Where is this text exactly?

Supreme Court should have given a time limit on how long the circuit courts have to make a final decision. Leaving it open ended means the circuit courts will continue to play the delay game which will go on for years or even decades.

No arms of ANY type should be kept from the people. The Bill of Rights is clear.

@danietkissenle

7 күн бұрын

Which means the only barrier should be the price tag

@markheath4240

7 күн бұрын

We should have a civilian militia armed with the same weapons as the government!

@therideneverends1697

7 күн бұрын

eh chemical weapons seem pretty reasonably off limits

@joshuarichard6827

7 күн бұрын

@@therideneverends1697no

@Fitingbros101

7 күн бұрын

the 2nd Amendment was meant more of as a recognition than a right. People are going to protect themselves anyway even if you don't let them. I mean you can make everyone a slave (which the left are trying to do), but that kinda defeats the purpose of society

And people in over a dozen states still won’t be able to buy semiauto rifles. Wake me up when these bans actually disappear.

@jimmybutler1379

7 күн бұрын

IF I AM STILL ALIVE THEN !...

@user-qo8sx1pl1z

7 күн бұрын

Time for a class action lawsuit in those states

@garyh1449

7 күн бұрын

@@user-qo8sx1pl1z Yup, more court time up and down the ladder, appeal after appeal, up to the supreme court back down to lower courts. Total BS. It would be nice if the law makers would have to go through all that before they can make a law in the first place.

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

You will undoubtedly get a nice long sleep. 😊

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

@@user-qo8sx1pl1z For whatever that's worth.

California will find a way around this. It’s tough to get excited, until the Supreme Court defines each thing word for work, in detail.

@HugsXO

7 күн бұрын

The 9th Circuit of Sleeze will find a way to work around it.😡

@teresamoore15

7 күн бұрын

2A text seems to be just fine. Inalienable Right, endowed us by the Creator, not by the government. Shall not be Infringed. What is the problem? The 2A debate ended with the ratification of the 2A, in 1791.

@watermann8200

7 күн бұрын

Yeah typical Marxist way of twisting the meaning of words into a pretzel.

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

Of course! 😆

@thomaseynon6205

7 күн бұрын

@@teresamoore15 I take it you do not live in California😂.

I'll take "All ammo bans/restrictions, caliber bans/restrictions, firearm bans/restrictions, firearm feature bans/restrictions, magazine capacity bans/restrictions, and any other firearm feature or accessory ban/restriction as well as all registrations of the aforementioned items are here by ordered unconstitutional in all States of these United States of America" for a thousand, Alex.

@craigpennington1251

Күн бұрын

Don't joke, Clowns we have now in the white house may just do that-TOMORROW.

Assult is an action, not a weapon.

@MaddenMagician

6 күн бұрын

And assault is defined in 49 states as placing someone in imminent fear of a battery or an attempted battery. So they're basically saying this is a weapon meant to not hit people don't see how it's dangerous it's just meant to assault them right😂😂😂

This is insane 😡 all California is gunna do is drag this case even longer then what it is hell I might be dead by the time they restore our rights

It sounds to me like SCOTUS did a “Here is how you need to look at this. You have one last chance to get it right”.

@casterakabadman805

7 күн бұрын

They did but how long will the lower courts drag their feet on this?

@GlockFanBoy94045

7 күн бұрын

And what about the states that already have these laws in place and was denied review by the Supreme Court years ago? Just tough luck for them?

@garyh1449

7 күн бұрын

@jonwilder8205 No it means you have dozens of chances to get it right.

@robertkoonce8365

7 күн бұрын

What, 1 chance at district court, 1 on appeal, 1 on en banc, then another shot to sit on a list for 6 more months at SCOTUS? SOUNDS A LOT LIKE 4 MORE CHANCES AT LEAST.

It doesn't matter if the firearm in question is common or not. Widely used or not. The 2nd Amendment makes no distinction nor exception!!!

2A debate is over. It is absolute no one wants to be the final author who signs any document regarding 2A. Which is scary because this is tantamount to no one in elected office today has the courage to sign what would be a modern day constitution.

@michaelshapiro1543

7 күн бұрын

Zackly! Two Founding Documents were signed in days when: "“we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

@@michaelshapiro1543 Well, I'm afraid times have changed.

@castlegarage6969

7 күн бұрын

Rediculas

The military in the past has used revolvers, so is that considered a military weapon?

@dwwolf4636

7 күн бұрын

Not yet. But they will be after AW bans are validated.

@dwwolf4636

7 күн бұрын

Ps. Why do you need military style sniper rifles with scopes ?

@ChaohsiangChen

7 күн бұрын

The military still uses revolvers, in 40mm.

@sethwinn4061

7 күн бұрын

Jesus Christ. Do we need to start warming up the tar and gathering feathers again? Is that really what it's going to take? Muskets and muzzleloading rifles were military arms for several centuries. So were bows. And spears. And axes. And swords. And knives. And clubs. If "militaristic bearable arms" is the threshold, get ready to give up your Kentucky rifles, Enfields, Garands, 1903's and its variants, trapdoor Springfields, Krag Jorgensen rifles, Revolvers, 1911's, M92's, P320's and a shitload of other single shot, repeating, and semi-automatic firearms. Apparently, those only belong in military possession since various militaries used them at some point. And AR-15's just because they look scary. WTF is wrong with these people?

@djmenace3646

7 күн бұрын

​@dwwolf4636 maybe he just wants one.

Love justice Thomas, and his "dissent"! The court is being "lazy". We the people need "relief" from "dictator like" governors and judges! Good video! ❤️

Great Report. Thank You. CJTV

I live in Texas, Governor Abbott wants his constituents to be able to defend themselves🎉..

@MaddenMagician

6 күн бұрын

That awkward woman you realize he goes to the bilderberg meetings and every other meeting😂😂😂😂 that awkward woman you realize he's worried about eagle pass why not every other area that's wide open I guess you don't live in Texas which is now a higher black and Hispanic population than white😂😂😂😂

@DrangusKahn

4 күн бұрын

@@MaddenMagicianI guess you should be in charge then huh? You can handle this crazy situation and see how welll you do.

@captainhoratius8192

4 күн бұрын

@@DrangusKahnhe’s right though. Abbott is still allowing migrants to be bussed and flown to other parts of the country. Remember he sent them himself to liberal states. Also you may not know, but Abbott and Ken Paxton wanted to remove federal job protections from troops deployed to Operation Lone Star, meaning that once the soldiers returned home they would be jobless.

@aquariumdude7829

3 күн бұрын

@@MaddenMagician Pretty soon, they will have to rename Texas "TEXMEX!" 😆

@aquariumdude7829

3 күн бұрын

@@DrangusKahn Let's face it. The United States is going the way of Rome in the 4th century. We were doomed from the moment we gave females the right to vote! 😆

Should been easy decision after Bruen...common use.. chevron... SMH

@rucker69

7 күн бұрын

You're missing the big picture plays here

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

Bruen is meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

@MaddenMagician

6 күн бұрын

​@@aquariumdude7829no you life is And we will take it when Trump is in office😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@aquariumdude7829

6 күн бұрын

@@MaddenMagician Dude, I'm a Trump voter.

@aquariumdude7829

6 күн бұрын

@@MaddenMagician Your sentence was also completely incoherent.

TY Cooper Jacket for all your 2A News.

I've always wondered who feels they have the right to determine what is a dangerous or unusual weapon, much less whether or not we should be able to bear them.

Seems like the SCOTUS is preparing to lay the final smackdown.

@oldrabidus2230

7 күн бұрын

@@tacd962they are giving the courts more rope. To justify removing them from office and Trump appoints new judges.

@juanalvarez4309

7 күн бұрын

To bad we wont be alive to see it

@tacd962

7 күн бұрын

@@juanalvarez4309 exactly

@GlockFanBoy94045

7 күн бұрын

And what if these courts change their stance, states with final judgments like NY will be forever stuck with these unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court denied review of NY’s safe act years ago meaning we can never undo it. The only hope we have is the SCOTUS hearing one of these other states.

@garyh1449

7 күн бұрын

@dmarshall34BS, I'll believe it only after I see it.

this "professional courtesy" stance at the expense of lower courts playing fast and loose with citizen's constitutionally protected "natural" rights is a bad precedent and tantamount to professional malfeasance. rights delayed are rights denied.

@stephanie-yu4ng

7 күн бұрын

I agree, the SC needs to slap the lower courts down with this stuff and a very stiff warning that they have no place playing fast and loose with our rights just because they are in someone's pocket. Oops, my bad, let's give the SC the same message.

It's been over 2 years since Bruen and this crap is still going on. SCOTUS needs to find their balls and rule on this once and for all.

Thank you. Frustrating to be sure.....even angering to a degree.

You're the first to report on this.

So basically we're back to the circle jerk that lasts another 20 years while the lower courts play the game and kick this back and forth on appeal.

Wow! What a statement from Judge Thomas🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌👏👏👏

Thanks for the update

That's a lot of words than mean nothing

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

Pretty much.

Remember,trump put in three almost useless judge's! He , let's useless people get in his ear too often.

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

I blame Mitch McConnell.

@mikealvord55

6 күн бұрын

Oh, for chrissakes three things you didn’t do 1-read the opinion. 2- Listen to the video 3-3 grow up.

Vehicles are used during the deletion of over 66k people per year, are they banning vehicles. No!

The Chevron Deference Blows this out of the Water,...

The system has been broken for far to long

The Supreme Court has turned into a circus

@craigpennington1251

Күн бұрын

So has America.

Cool, we will revisit this case in a decade or two.

Excellent update

What we need is to be able to buy firearms anywhere we want. Go out of state, show a government approved ID that establishes your citizenship, pass an on the spot background check, pay for it and off you go. Where you keep the firearm is not important. That's what we should be pushing for so that these silly bans will become ineffective.

@OpenCarryUSMC

7 күн бұрын

ID? CITIZENSHIP? BACKGROUND CHECK? Three stiles right there. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!’nn

A right delayed is a right denied...

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

Well, that's unfortunate but it's the real world.

@MaddenMagician

6 күн бұрын

​@@aquariumdude7829Right this is the real world where I will make and keep whatever I want no one will stop me unless they want to catch three in the face

Good update

Thank you for Clarification.

Rights denied since 1989 in CA, what’s the rush here?!

@jimmybutler1379

7 күн бұрын

FREEDOM OR SLAVERY IS THE RUSH TO GET THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED !...

I don't think the lower courts give a rats --- what Justice Thomas said. They will continue to do whatever they want. they know there are no consequences.

Thanks for the info

No link to that SCOTUS doc? Thanx.

Ca 9th circus will take as long as they can.

@backfromthedead553

7 күн бұрын

Yup and it'll never be completed to go to the Supreme Court.

@frankventrella8558

7 күн бұрын

Same with NY 2nd circuit

Decades ago a wise man said, "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!" Yeah. 200 million outlaws!

@jimmybutler1379

7 күн бұрын

AND MAYBE MORE THAN THEY CAN COUNT OR DEFEND AGAINST AS WELL !...

@JohnMoore-xf5wy

7 күн бұрын

@@jimmybutler1379 They have no idea how many firearms there are scattered about. So they make another "law."

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

Who was the "wise man?"

Like a tennis match, WE THE PEOPLE, is the ball being bounced back an forth. WE THE PEOPLE ARE BEING GAMED!

Great video brother 💪🙏

Meanwhile law arms in Naperville has taken an enormous hit to their business and may have to close. There will be irreparable harm done while waiting for this to wrap up.

Back to the betting board. Which case will get up first? Bevis, Viramones, Miller, or the one of the east coast cases who i am drawing a blank on

@3istheanswer

7 күн бұрын

Whichever one is of least consequence

Good Job Justice Thomas.

To sum things up they decided to procrastinate.

Terrible for those of us in states like NY because even if courts like the seventh circuit change their mind it does nothing for those of us in NY and California. I don’t understand why we can’t challenge NY laws just because they denied it in the past with different justices. Say these interlocutory cases follow Thomas’s advice, states like NY and CA are forever stuck with these laws.

@stephanie-yu4ng

7 күн бұрын

The Peoples Republic of Washington State has become no different. I remember when this state did have rights, but that was a long time ago.

@freegeorgia4808

7 күн бұрын

Progressives dont care if it's not what they want.

@jimmybutler1379

7 күн бұрын

CONSTITUTIONALITY IS WHAT IS IN QUESTION HERE AND THOSE THAT PASSED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS WHAT ABOUT THEM ARE THEY THEN TREASONIST AGAINST OUR OWN NATION OF THE USA ? ANSWER IS YES !......

@GlockFanBoy94045

7 күн бұрын

@@DJ-769 You’re absolutely right that should be the way forward, unfortunately it doesn’t work like that in New York. NYC which is overwhelmingly democrat dictates what happens with the rest of the state. It’s a state where gun laws literally get passed in the middle of the night with almost no opposition.

Good for the Supreme Court they want an ironclad no wiggle room law for the ownership of such defensive weapons❤❤

The 2a is the most absolute amendment shall not be infringed means no laws can be made to restrict it. Assault rifles are necessary for the people to own and carry. I don't mind saying assault rifle as I believe the 2a protects full auto weapons also

I saw this coming after seeing what the Supreme Court does. Living in Illinois I’ve been watching this closer than I would if I weren’t so impacted. Justice Stephen mcglen in the southern district of Illinois has a court date set for one of the cases. He has said he won’t allow the system to drag this out

Shell not be infringed is pretty simple, supreme courts job is to enforce and protect constitutional rights, it’s failed

@jimmybutler1379

7 күн бұрын

SO FAR ! TO EXPLAIN RIGHTS FROM PREVILAGES GRANTED OR TAKEN AWAY !...

@newtonfirefly3584

7 күн бұрын

@john-mf1qm; You are nearly correct, but not quite precisely correct, accurate, precise. The 2A IS precise, accurate, exact with "shall not infringe" for any basis, thinking, idea, concept, reason, reasoning, claim, etc. Also similarly clear with general use of "Arms" = All Arms of all types, forms, whichever exist during any time past present or future. Also as the Supreme Court previously decided, ruled, the phrase about militia did not indicate, mean, confer a limitation of who had the "right to keep and bear arms", but the base, basis of all "Arms" are certainly those used within Militia, Military. Then they also determined the statement within 2A does not limit the type of Arms to only those used within Militia, Military, but any used by anyone. Simple. Period. Thus, the claim that only arms or weapons used commonly by the public is also not a valid claim, or limitation, rather denies, refuses the previous Supreme Court decision, ruling, detailed description, basis, logic, reason, reasoning. Also all Arms legislation passed by US Congress, State Legislation are certainly illegal, unlawful, Unconstitutional, direct violations of the 2A. Simple. Period. All The Best, Sincerely

There was no way they were going to hear these as they are in interlockutory status. I'm not sure why anyone thought they would

@KaletheQuick

7 күн бұрын

Because no one knows why that actually prevents anything. Its unconstitutional on its face, not a hard decision.

@NikoBellaKhouf2

7 күн бұрын

​@@KaletheQuickexactly

@garyh1449

7 күн бұрын

Simple......fu(k interlockutory status........case closed.

Ah, thanks for the explanation

Thanks

BS

In the meantime, I can't even purchase a Ruger 10/22 here in Washington State! I demand reparations!!!

@perrywilliams4587

7 күн бұрын

10/22 is legal. The charger is an "assault weapon" though and is verboten

@jw546

7 күн бұрын

@@perrywilliams4587 nope. I asked at Sharp Shooting gun range in Spokane, WA.1 week ago. They've been in business for over 30 years. It's a "semi-automatic rifle capable of hold more than 10 rounds," thus, it is unavailable for purchase.

@jw546

7 күн бұрын

@@perrywilliams4587 Also, the Charger is considered to be a pistol, so it's legal if the barrel isn't threaded. Threaded barrels are also illegal.

@freegeorgia4808

7 күн бұрын

What. Are you serious? How is a .22lr a assault weapon hahahahaha. Progressives are so ignorant

@jw546

7 күн бұрын

@@perrywilliams4587 I literally watched a salesperson explain to a man trying to purchase on at a local shop in Spokane, WA and was denied because, "the 10/22 is a semi-automatic rifle CAPABLE of holding more than 10 rds. and was considered banned in Washington."

Good review

@CopperJacketTV, The SCOTUS ruled in this manner to allow The Seventh Circuit to rectify their error, AND if The Seventh Circuit does rule - as they should - in favor of what is lawful and Constitutional, that sets the precedent at the Federal Circuit Court level instead of it being done directly at The SCOTUS level, which allows for any future cases to be ajudicated more directly through that precedent at Federal Circuit Court levels, as opposed to always being sent up to The SCOTUS.

The Second does protect the use of military firearms that’s literally the point…Even SCOTUS is wrong.

@newtonfirefly3584

7 күн бұрын

LIE !! the Supreme Court already decided, ruled that militia arms, weapons are the base, basis of the 2A per the introduction with 'militia' then decided, ruled that also 2A is not limited to Arms of the militia, rather includes all types. @NadJebron; You clearly are ignorant, lacking proper knowledge, logic, reason, reasoning, law, and decisions, ruling !! 😲

I do believe it will work out for us.

@baddrivercam

7 күн бұрын

California been fighting the bans for more than 30 years.

@garyh1449

7 күн бұрын

@@baddrivercam The Calif. people havent, though. I guess they think the government will fix itself.

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

Based on what?

No room for organizations in America that have the following criteria 1. Unelected bureaucrats and no term limits 2. Taxing a god given right 3. Creating rules that act like laws without the checks and balances of Congress If there is anything else you would like to add to this list please be my guest.

I thought the military didn't like the Ar-15

@freegeorgia4808

7 күн бұрын

Nonsense

WE ALL HAVE TO GET TO UNDERSTANDING THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT IS "{A ASSULT WEAPON" IS "THE PERSON OR PERSONS IN CONTROL OF" WEAPONS OF ANY KIND ! OTHER WISE THE WEAPON IS USELESS NOT ABLE TO WORK ON ITS OWN !...

@newtonfirefly3584

7 күн бұрын

FALSE - LIES !! 😲 Nonsense !! The Supreme Court already decided, ruled decades ago, that the intro with 'Militia' determines the base of Arms are certainly within those used by Militia, Military. => This purpose, intent was to allow the people to not only form militia, thus have militia Arms, weapons as any militia including the Government, so the people could oppose, combat the Government by force if necessary as the Founders did. Then they used proper logic, reason, reasoning with the continuation to determined that 2A does not limit the Arms to only those used by militia, but all types, for all purposes, intents, without any limitations, along without any restrictions of any type, means by "shall not be infringed". Simple, Period.

Your making good sense!

I don't like the direction this is going. Even if it is militaristic, that's the whole point of the 2nd amendment. They should be acknowledging that military weapons are exactly the type of arms that need protection to remain in civilian hands.

Do these Judges still get paid even though they REFUSE to do their job?

@rucker69

7 күн бұрын

Did you even watch the flipping video?

@Batmann_

7 күн бұрын

I'm starting to hate this channel, not because he makes bad vids or anything, but because the comments are always fully of little babies who can only think in binary terms.

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

@@Batmann_ They're also very repetitive in their complaints too.

Supreme Court, Remember the Alamo!!!

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

Dude, we lost the Battle of the Alamo.

@mollymaccorkle7054

7 күн бұрын

The point was that the civilians were doing the fighting, with whatever arms they had. The government hadn't said they couldn't arm themselves.. In the 1933 Oxford Universal Dictionary under arms 1716: Arme your selfie To fit your fancies to your Fathers Will Mids. I believe that "your Fathers Will", eludes to God.... So arm yourself with anything and everything you want... Inalienable right... Endowed by our creator, life, (to defend yourself, not hamstrung bringing a knife to a gunfight, if the cartels try to take over your neighborhood). Liberty, (what you want, freedom to choose), and the pursuit of happiness, (whatever makes you happy), particularly it would make me happy to be armed just as well or not better than the arms we send to other countries...

I will admit justice brown has been one of the biggest surprises of the current administration.

I only have my dad’s old .38 revolver, but am sure paying attention!

By this time this year the country is going to be way different ..not in a good way

All arms are protected it doesn't matter what it is

@jimklemens5018

7 күн бұрын

The arms have to be bearable.

@aquariumdude7829

7 күн бұрын

No, Dan. There are sane limits. You can't have fissionable plutonium or weaponized anthrax.

You know I'm not a lawyer but I called this like months ago. People who listen to these lawyers and these opinion heads they don't really know what they're talking about. I have been right every single time when it comes to the Supreme Court and what it will do. Every time. And I'm no lawyer so what the hell?

In Illinois the “s” is silent.

What a cowardly ruling.

I agree with your assessment

The term “ well regulated” means that a citizen shall be able to effectively engage any threat. Redefining words such as arms subverts the intent of the statement. The word shall is an absolute mandate and is intended to direct without deviation.

I no longer care what the courts say, I am going to exercise my rights. And if LEO or the courts want to come get some, so be it.

While these delays are maddening, it seems like there’s a light at the end of the tunnel and the writing is on the wall.