Sign up for the Armed Scholar Newsletter: www.armedscholar.com/contact Support the channel by liking the video and subscribing!

@matrixlone

24 күн бұрын

The only assault weapons are human beings

@r.d.9399

24 күн бұрын

Our Constitutional Rights should NOT be different in different states.

@Timothy-Wess

24 күн бұрын

I tried to subscribe to your channel, but the only option it gives me; is to unsubscribe🤷‍♂️

@RoyDMorris

24 күн бұрын

I appreciate your content and willingness to keep us up to date with all 2A cases. Quick question, where do we stand with pistol braces? If I have a PCC, can I attach a stock or is this still something that requires a tax stamp or an SBR application?

@rrshier

18 күн бұрын

@@r.d.9399 Interestingly, that is address in Article 4 section 2 LOL. "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of Citizens in the several states". I think we tend to ALSO FORGET that line!!!

If the government tells you that you don't need it, immediately go out and buy two.

@derrickrr5516

21 күн бұрын

Or three

@rockinfaceplant0000

21 күн бұрын

Or as much and as many as you can afford!!

@jaceryan3708

19 күн бұрын

And if they tell you it’s mandatory, give them the finger

The civilians ownership of firearms, also used by the Military, has been a part of America's history since the Pilgrims.

@tomaskren8686

24 күн бұрын

That's why I think the "military use" test is stupid. Minutemen were called to battle and were required to bring their own arms which means today I need to have, at a minimum, the weapons issued to a standard rifleman be protected and available to include the magazines needed to fire from. Another reason the "military use" test is stupid is because they get most their stuff from the civilian market. Hope you don't like Skilcraft pens, yup used in the military. Any brand or truck... yup military bought & used.

@nwchrista

24 күн бұрын

@@tomaskren8686 Agreed. John Wayne bought a battleship. They 'probably' killed him for the move. Whatever the so called government possesses, we need to possess to keep them in check. If they want to remove 'arms', they can start with themselves. As long as the police and military exist and are armed, we need to be armed. And this supreme farce better be careful about their whacky ways or they'll soon find themselves under a whole different kind of scrutiny. They smelled revolution in the air during their covid vaxx decision process and rightly decided to uphold the Chevron doctrine, ...and it appeared that they were going to use the so called emergency to overrule Chevron, at the time. We stood by and let them make their move and they decided to back down. The very fact that we have guns kept even the Supreme farce in check.

@tonyorob

24 күн бұрын

​@@tomaskren8686Yep, and the 'in common use' standard is also BS. ANY firearm is protected under the 2A, even the very rare guns.

@MsNerdsRevenge

24 күн бұрын

Fire Arms and Heavy Machines is Mars. It is Ares and Ares is in the Bible. Why does 7 have to always balance when many forget 7 is divinity.

@jamescook7713

24 күн бұрын

If the military and 'law enforcement" can own/use a weapon, the average citizen should also have that same weapon.

Upholding these rights protects not only our freedoms but also ensures responsible gun ownership prevails over knee-jerk legislation.

@dwainyoung542

24 күн бұрын

You are some of that crazy …

@CommanderShepard68

24 күн бұрын

You want your guns taken away???​@@dwainyoung542

@joshuarichard6827

24 күн бұрын

The second amendment has secured ZERO freedom

@haraldmarshall8424

24 күн бұрын

You sound like a communist.

@RNagy-ke4se

23 күн бұрын

@@dwainyoung542crazy?

Respect for the cool and thoughtful head of S.C. Justice Thomas.

SCOTUS needs to get with and stick to a purist interp of the Consitution, CITIZENS have the Rights, NOT STATES or Feds.

@davidpetersen329

24 күн бұрын

Now while the Court could have...but would have violated the processes.

@IAmTheRealBill

24 күн бұрын

States do have rights. It is a key aspect of us being in a republican union.

@user-anc123

24 күн бұрын

@@IAmTheRealBillthe constitution applies to the peoples rights not state or federal government having the right to infringe on their rights

@grandpagun2843

24 күн бұрын

@@IAmTheRealBillnot the bill of rights

@davidpetersen329

24 күн бұрын

@@IAmTheRealBill they do not have a right to remove constitutional rights.

I live in South Louisiana. Our government just said that we have the right to Concealed Carry, starting on July the 4th. Meanwhile, the mayor of New Orleans and the City Council are busily making rules and regulations and new "gun free zones" to infringe on these very rights.

@joshuarichard6827

24 күн бұрын

Youve had the right since before you were born

@rona4960

24 күн бұрын

@@joshuarichard6827 🤣🤣🤣

@marktwain2053

24 күн бұрын

What's needed is "Politician Free" Zones.

@theKashConnoisseur

24 күн бұрын

You know what I like best about concealed carry? The concealed part. 😉

@221WTF

24 күн бұрын

​@@rona4960yeah you know, Inalienable rights? Do you know what that means?

Justice delayed is justice denied.

@americanpatriot7247

23 күн бұрын

Danny - in this case, the S.C. is waiting for these cases to get final decisions from the courts in Illinois. At that time, if the decisions are against the freedoms of the people the S.C. will review and make a judgement on those cases. In this case, injustice waited on, is final justice granted.

@marcar9marcar972

22 күн бұрын

So I get what you’re saying but what, we’re going to encourage them to rule against us

@troyarnold5956

22 күн бұрын

There's no decision... supreme court can only put the decision on hold longer... or wait for the decision to overturn or keep... this is the faster route

The 2A is the American permit to keep and bear arms, without restrictions.

@jacobm2625

24 күн бұрын

Permit is too weak a word. Maybe directive or edict. Commandment, perhaps.

@rona4960

24 күн бұрын

There is no such thing as an unlimited right

@theKashConnoisseur

24 күн бұрын

"Shall not be infringed" has been understood to only refer to complete disarmament. There's no such thing as an unlimited right, which the Supreme Court reiterated in the recent Rahimi decision.

@redfather5342

24 күн бұрын

Yes there is

@williamrose7184

24 күн бұрын

The Supreme Court also once said that Black people weren’t human beings. Just because the Supreme Court says it doesn’t mean it’s correct. The founding fathers couldn’t imagine any type of restrictions on the first and second amendment that’s why they are the first and the second amendment. Clearly says shall not be infringed, that means they cannot do anything to stop us from getting said firearms… if they wouldn’t restrictions on these rights, they would’ve put it in the constitution.

Good Job Justice Thomas for putting swamp on notice.

@Ghoxtfire

24 күн бұрын

yes he clearly explain why not every gun is protected by the 2a we need the ruling on that to finally start banning guns legally.

@theKashConnoisseur

24 күн бұрын

@@Ghoxtfire The Supreme Court has already ruled that "dangerous and unusual" weapons can be regulated, but not arms "in common use". It would be extremely difficult to ban semi automatic rifles and handguns given that precedent. While you can argue that they are indeed dangerous, they are not unusual. Both must be true for outright bans to be justified. For example, the sawed-off shotguns are considered dangerous AND unusual. Their concealable nature and lack of common use combine to allow for regulations. However, under the new standards given by Bruen, I think there's an argument to make that anything considered standard issue by the military or police would be considered "under common use" for purposes of a citizen militia. And so short barreled rifle restrictions and laws around machine guns might face some challenge.

@Ghoxtfire

24 күн бұрын

@@theKashConnoisseur well depends on the judge defining dangerous since it's not required to meet all 3 with 1 will be enough to ban it.

@u.s.aarchangelforgod3679

24 күн бұрын

@ardrone56 Yaa it’s called protecting the 2A Rights. Let’s get it right not far left lmfao 🤣

@u.s.aarchangelforgod3679

24 күн бұрын

@@Ghoxtfire Hate to burst your bubble, that will never happen. Nothing but a waste of tax payers money to fight something the swamp far left Democrats will never WIN. These laws were in place before me and you. All the Democrats are doing is finding loop holes that they will never find.

...shall not be infringed.

@byYouTube94

19 күн бұрын

and yet… 🤦🏻‍♂️

I’m happy with Thomas’ remarks. It is necessary for SCOTUS to clear up the definition of “arms” and what weapons are “bearable”. The “dangerous” and “unusual” terms definitely need to be clarified. These terms need to be addressed fully and clearly, ensuring the language being used can clearly withstand the changes to language over time.

An armed society is a polite society.

@mikevargo5960

22 күн бұрын

I wonder how true that was in the wild west.

I’m not even sure why we need a CC permit. That’s an infringement.

Still trying to understand how my privilege to drive in any state outweighs my right to carry in any state.

@debrasnipes7431

22 күн бұрын

It doesn’t. In 2022 the Supreme Court that you have the right to carry a firearm outside of your home. All states now allow the carrying of concealed weapon in SOME public places. SCOTUS also said, however, that the states have the right to determine and implement licensing requirements for carrying handguns for self-defense, such as fingerprinting, background checks and mental health records checks. Some states have a reciprocity agreement with other states and recognize a carry license from a neighboring states, but all do not. You can be required to obtain another license in the state other than the state in which you already are licensed. You just need to know the laws of the state in which are carrying or will be traveling to and carrying. Those laws may be significantly different than your home state.

@angeladangela500

20 күн бұрын

Exactly!! A vehicle is no less a deadly weapon than a firearm.

@startsontime

19 күн бұрын

Amen. Never understood how a privilege outranks a right.

SO sick of the DELAY, DELAY, DELAY!!!

@angeladangela500

20 күн бұрын

This Supreme Court has kicked the can down the road on so many issues. Kavanaugh and Barrett are total disappointments!

Justice Thomas' statement was pure fire!

@nonconsensualopinion

23 күн бұрын

His statements are the best money can buy.

Would be nice if the SCOTUS would put a time frame on how soon all the other courts had to complete theses cases

@VoFALT

24 күн бұрын

I don't think that's entirely prudent. These things are never set in stone.

@MARCHOFTHESAS

24 күн бұрын

@@VoFALTthey should be

@joeh1687

24 күн бұрын

Yes, I agree completely, the lower courts have been stalling the process and it should not be tolerated by the supreme court.

@williamna5800

24 күн бұрын

It's just to ensure they keep us without rights half the time, then let us have our rights the other half. A game to keep both sides happy opposite the other, thus keeping us at the other side and never turn our attention to the corruption in upper ranks. This way the power stays where they like it, with themselves. The judicial system has nothing to do with our rights, or justice for any one of us. Our "checks and balances" do exists, the are used daily to keep us peons in "check" and the "balance" of power stays in the gov. hands.

The statement by justice Thomas was very promising. I live in RI and we need this win.

'Military use' is a complete pile of 💩 The Constitution does NOT include any reference to anything regarding 'military use'. Shall NOT BE INFRINGED couldn't be any clearer.

@carlfrye1566

24 күн бұрын

The fact "militia" is included in 2A means the founders intended military use for citzens arms was an expectation.

@Amu313

23 күн бұрын

in fact! the 2A was MEANT for us to have the same fire power as the military! the whole idea is that we, the citizens, can fight back against tyrannical governments. so we NEED the same fire power as the government... thats the SOLE purpose of the 2A.. not just for "hunting" like democrats think.. its to hold onto our freedoms from governments trying to strip that away from us, even by military force.

@hellspyro666420

23 күн бұрын

almost all arms at the time where military arms. Every day citizens owned war ships and artillery. If im not mistaken there is a Supreme Court ruling saying military arms are protected by the 2nd amendment, so then if military arms are protected and in common use weapons then that covers basically all arms.

@johnwalters4383

23 күн бұрын

​@@hellspyro666420Funny, the Deep State seems to not care about the SCOTUS OR THE CONTITUTION. 😢

@bofootball30

22 күн бұрын

It clearly states " A well regulated militia" dah

Bless Justice Thomas. thumbs up at the Justice that actually recognizes the Bill of Rights is a living breathing part of this Countries true rights.

@rona4960

24 күн бұрын

Thomas doesn't care as long as his rich buddy buys him a drink.

@rebeccamead4557

24 күн бұрын

I wish Biden could remember what he put Justice Thomas through when Biden was a Senator while he playing as possibly having carnal knowledge with his babysitter, one Jill, hmm 🤔 example of blame others for what you are doing😊. Being doing it for years!!

@fartinthewind933

24 күн бұрын

What's the point if only one of the nine agree with you? It just means you get nothing.

@nonconsensualopinion

23 күн бұрын

@@rona4960 Bingo. Whether you agree or disagree with any one of his decisions, he's a compromised hack that has been proven to be taking bribes. You better just hope his handlers want the same things you want.

The second ammendment says we should have a well armed militia! How could the a r 15 not be good for militia??

SCOTUS needs to grow a pair of balls and uphold the constitution as written

Thanks for the status update… you’re keeping the 2A masses informed… you’re a patriot

Our history has always allowed citizens to possess the same general firearms as our military, from flintlocks, to leverage action rifles, single and then double action revolvers, semi auto rifles and pistols, bolt rifles and AR-15 semi auto rifle platforms since they were invented; so how can these states argue that it has changed today?

@DoomMunkeyX

23 күн бұрын

They don't want you to be able to fight back.

@DC-ei9vl

21 күн бұрын

First, here's my pedigree in the subject: Raised in the country around guns, knew they were all "loaded" whether they really were or not before puberty. Also knew permanently dispatching someone because of hurt feelings/pride was morally wrong. USN Gunners Mate (Guns), US Army National Guard. Now, a Remington 7400 .223 same exact thing as an AR-15 in .223. I guess one of them is just "scary looking" or something. It's always people who don't know squat about firearms trying to argue without legit documentation.

@SDesWriter

21 күн бұрын

Because their ultimate goal is an unarmed society they can control and rule over.

@growingup9954

16 күн бұрын

Any gun regulation is in violation of 2A. Period. How can we protect the nation from tyranny if we cannot carry or own what the military does?

Sue em all Anthony

@ArmedScholar

24 күн бұрын

🇺🇸👍

Kicked the can down the road.

@jerrymatthews1053

23 күн бұрын

That’s the way I feel about it too 😕

The chevron deference decision is where everyone needs to be looking. Here's why: If federal agencies cannot interpret federal laws and rights then there is definitely no room for a state or local government, much less a state or local government bureau to interpret federal laws and rights. They cannot argue that federal laws have supremacy if they pick and choose which rights and laws have supremacy over state and federal laws. At the heart of the chevron deference case is the scotus affirming that all interpretations of federal laws and federally enumerated rights are the sole jurisdiction of the federal courts. It says so directly in the ruling. Now we just need cease and desist orders based on that ruling...but i'm gonna tell you, GOA, NRA, FPC, SAF and the rest will not do this because if they did, they would all be out of very lucrative jobs. This is going to have to come from private individuals and their private attorneys. I have been posting the following comment on every gun law channel i watch for months and will continue to do so: States and local governments explicitly do not have the right or jurisdiction to enforce anything having to do with weapons or the use or carry of weapons. That all falls under federal jurisdiction because that is a federally enumerated right and federal law. Allowing state and local governments to change and modify our rights and forcing citizens to assert their rights in court costing 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars, jail time or even costing their lives to do so is not legal. It is criminal. In order for the Constitution to be law and for the bill of rights to be law, they must be congruent on every square inch of US owned territory. PERIOD.

"Shall not infringe" is pretty clear.

Every weapon ever invented are arms period, Shall Not Be Infringed.

@jakejordan7775

24 күн бұрын

Alright, so you're cool with some crackhead down the street owning a nuke?

@tvbtvb5124

22 күн бұрын

So is the NUCLEAR BOMB. Should you have one in your glove compartment?

@Mr.Constitutionalist427

22 күн бұрын

@@tvbtvb5124 Yes if you can afford one, cause no one has an issue with the idea of putting them in ever house basement for power, they just haven't made them small enough yet, but we have tons of culture references that prove most people would support doing it.

@lancewalker6067

21 күн бұрын

@@tvbtvb5124can you afford one?🤦‍♂️

@overbuiltautomotive1299

21 күн бұрын

@@tvbtvb5124 staw man argument like abortion and insist rape and all the less than 1 percent crap

This results in not slowing down the various PICA cases as they go through their processes in the courts. SCOTUS extremely rarely takes up a case in an interlocutory status. I also think SCOTUS is "gently" stating to the lower courts, via Justice Thomas's statement, that they should start being more careful in how they rule as SCOTUS knows what's percolating in the lower courts.

We appreciate everything you do, stay with it. We support you and the US Constitution 🇺🇸

They just GVRed them to kick it further down the road. These district courts will just sit on everything like the 9th circuit is doing. 10 years to get a decision should bring an immediate SCOTUS decision.

Currently, there are no countries whose primary service rifle is exclusively semi-automatic. Most modern militaries use select-fire rifles, which can switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic or burst fire modes. This versatility is crucial for adapting to various combat situations. Historically, the United States was unique in adopting the M1 Garand, a semi-automatic rifle, as its primary service rifle during World War II. However, this is no longer the case, as the U.S. military now uses select-fire rifles like the M4 and M16.

@leeknivek

23 күн бұрын

Which we could purchase and still can in many cases, with only the 1986 ban on future weapons. The army was using select fire weapons hand in hand with citizens being able to freely purchase them

All current cases that are having identity problems, assault weapon, high capacity magazine, common use, etc., should have a definition hearing.

SCOTUS is not interested in taking up an AWB and mag ban case. Period.

God bless Judge Thomas🙏

This is getting aggravating if we stand together they all will fall

@user-dl3tk7qt6y

21 күн бұрын

"PEOPLE ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN POLITICIANS IF THEY EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT," Beta Matani'Marashi

We are the most oppressed community in America at the moment.

@DC-ei9vl

21 күн бұрын

I'm 57 and I absolutely agree. It's time to stop tolerating dumb shit and bring common sense back. Film every encounter with "authority" you're able to, question all incoming information (even from well trusted and familiar sources). When somebody presents a study to try proving something, find out who funded it, most importantly, we always need to have the moral courage to not follow the crowd when the crowd is wrong. Call out BS when and where we see it. These are a few peaceably resistant things I can think of but nothing new. Ideas?

Thank you for the clear and concise update.

I'm from Illinois this has been going on for a year. The SC left us hanging on our Rights

Question: What "Military usage" does the AR-15 have? F J B

@user-pe3ld2is2o

24 күн бұрын

And why would you not want your militia to have and practice with military use weapons?

@otpyrcralphpierre1742

24 күн бұрын

@@user-pe3ld2is2o I DO want my militia to have and practice with Military use weapons, but that does not answer my question....What "MILITARY usage" does the AR-15 have?

@user-pe3ld2is2o

24 күн бұрын

@@otpyrcralphpierre1742 literally everything an M-16/M-4 does except auto and/or burst fire, which makes it the next best thing to train on for non-specialized troops. I would like to see our militia be able to train on all platforms that they may fight with, that may take decades or even a century. F-16s, sure, just as the NG has armories where they are stored securely, so could the militias.

I don't think I ever read the term "Lawful Purpose" in the 2nd or any other amendment.

Still can’t buy an AR in CA 15,000 videos later.

GLAD THAT YOU EXSPLAIN THE CASES!!!

So if "arms" issued for military use are are for military use only, not covered by 2nd Amendment protections, what about handguns? Glocks, Sig P320's Berettas, all have been issued and used in our military. Does that then mean, because they had military use, they are not given 2A protection for us, the responsible and law-abiding gun owners? And if THEY are protected under the 2A, what difference should it make if the firearm is a handgun or rifle? Notwithstanding the fact that an M16 issued in the military, is NOT THE SAME as an AR15 we can buy here! I would love these people to show me proof that an AR15, semi-auto only, was ever issued to our military!

So we are looking at a minimum of two more years on an AWB case getting a SCOTUS decision. Hope the “make-up” of SCOTUS doesn’t change before then.

@scottahermann

23 күн бұрын

Thomas is 78. He's probably only got a couple more years

@Walter-wo5sz

23 күн бұрын

All the more reason to vote for Trump.

@scottahermann

23 күн бұрын

​@@Walter-wo5szDoesn't seem real likely. He'd have to win independents 4:1. I'm not seeing it SCOTUS is basically blowing their chances to correct the big items. Hope an AW case gets there next year

@fredlebhart1393

22 күн бұрын

@@scottahermannindependents didn’t watch the ‘debate’ I guess 🤷

@scottahermann

22 күн бұрын

​@@fredlebhart1393I saw it. It moved the polls 3-5 points. In other words, it didn't change anyone's mind. Trump needs the middle. Suburban college educated moms. He's already got as much of the white male vote as he's going to get

Thank you for your reports!

@ArmedScholar

24 күн бұрын

Glad you like them!

My question is how much longer will this delay the whole process? Or more specifically how much more time have we given anti-Gun politicians and courts

Once they take away your ability to defend yourself then they can implement all kinds of crazy laws.

Rather be Judge by 12 , than Carry by Six. Bang Bang!!!

the second ammendment defines arms as all weapons, even military weapons. the founders confirmed this when discussing canons

TY A.S for all your 2A News💯💪🏽

They punted, but Lucy was holding the football.

“Weapons that would be reserved for military use should be banned” I guess by that logic knives should be illegal then. And also trucks I guess

Keep up the good work, Anthony.

What is the latest on the kalifornia ban on internet sales of ammo??

Can't imagine getting my information anywhere else! Thanks Anthony!

@ArmedScholar

24 күн бұрын

Happy to help and I really appreciate your support!

Thank you for valuable info❤

Excellent commentary! Thank you!

Hello Al

@ArmedScholar

24 күн бұрын

⛽🚀

Thanks again for the info 👍👍

Excellent episode! Thanks!

Protect our 2A and all constitutions

I find scotus to be very spineless right now

@BLEACH500

24 күн бұрын

They don’t want Biden packing the court they are waiting until after the election

@borabora4480

24 күн бұрын

they are not spineless, but rather following strong precedant in managing interlocutory appeals. Once they do grant cert on these bans they may very well have even a stronger WIN.

@Kelso0225

24 күн бұрын

@@borabora4480 it just seems like every time we send something up to them they just send it right back to the lower courts and the drag it out even longer. I live in mass so that could be where my frustration is coming from lol

@DisposableYeetapotamus

24 күн бұрын

@@borabora4480 honestly its pretty ass tho, by the time these old fucks make up their mind on whether or not our 2A Rights are worth the paper they're printed on, we'll all likely be dead. for Illinazi to get away with this 2 years into it and has zero aid to those affected by the problems inflicted by tyrants pushing the popular talking points despite none of them idiots even understanding on how guns work let alone knowing how to shoot. This all baffles me on how our government can just walk all over us and its fine, but yet, if a private citizen were to do any of this to a politician, they'd be in getmo for terrorism, just so absurd.

@0oo00

23 күн бұрын

Well, have a look at them.

Thank you for your report!

Thank you for all of your updates on 2A.

It is wonderful to hear that the Supreme is ready to take on these cases on final merits reviews.

@sedg03

22 күн бұрын

Interlocutory... theyll ask questions to help guide the cases....

So one thing you can bet on, is you can’t bet on SCOTUS.

@davidrush8283

24 күн бұрын

My thoughts as well, may never do any thing for The People.

@joshhencik1849

24 күн бұрын

You can't rely on them to jump the gun, no pun intended, and start ruling on things that haven't made their way through the process yet.

@jamescook7713

24 күн бұрын

SCrOTUmS.

What makes a weapon an arm? Military use or not arms are arms... period. 2A restricts nothing on the bases of it being for military use or otherwise. This is all BS.

Thanks for the update.

At what point do you think us here in Washington state Will start to see our “assault weapons” ban be more challenged by people like the Supreme Court? “Assault Weapon Ban. In 2023, Washington became the 10th state to generally ban the sale and manufacture of assault weapons. Unlike most other states with assault weapon bans, however, Washington does not ban or regulate the possession of assault weapons, only their sale, manufacture, import, and distribution.”

@theKashConnoisseur

24 күн бұрын

To see the WA weapons or magazine bans challenged in the Supreme Court, you'd likely need to have a case work it's way through Washington federal courts, then the 9th Circuit, and then to SCOTUS if they choose to hear it. It's possible that another SCOTUS decision will strike down AR and magazine bans nationwide before that, and in that case, Washington would be freed.

@RAM-ez8ml

24 күн бұрын

Washington gun law covers a few lawsuits that have been filed since that law was passed.

Hey SCOTUS! Do Your Fkn Job!!!

God please let them look into the SAFE act in NY

@The_glock_fanboy

24 күн бұрын

​@ardrone56 point is we shouldn't have to bro!!!!!!!!!!! That's like letting mold grow in your bedroom than just moving the the guest bed. Tf how does that make since.

@superegghead13

24 күн бұрын

@ardrone56why should we have to give up OUR state. Upstate ny gets held by blue because of nyc’s massive 8 million people. Rest of the counties vote red besides albany syracuse rochester and buffalo

Anything designed to be used as a weapon or anything designed to be used with a weapon can be considered arms. Anything someone decides to use as a weapon is also considered arms at that moment. The 2nd amendment doesn't just cover firearms it covers any weapon and weapon accessorie. As well as any component to them, including ammunition and explosives. Private citizen should be free to own and carry any weapon they want and carry them wherever they want that the public is allowed to go. Which must include court houses, state and federal offices, schools, banks, and parks. It shouldn't matter if I want to buy or make even a nuclear bomb as long as I don't use it in an illegal manner.

THANK YOU, you're a specific commentary, straight forward.

@ArmedScholar

24 күн бұрын

Thanks for your support!

I have to disagree with justice Thomas on a couple things: "We have never squarely addressed what type of weapons are arms" , all of them. "We noted the second amendment does not protect those weapons typically not possessed by law abiding citizens", Wrong! The second amendment protects our right to all weapons. Case in point- during the revolutionary war we used privately owned warships (privateers) to help us gain our independence.

Any law that restricts private ownership, use, carry, etc of ANY weapon is a violation of the Constitution and a basic human Right.

Thank you.

Thank you for the update

concise and direct breakdown of this information.

Why does Cali have a ban on ar 15. That would also be unconstitutional?

It's always the same game of this court to that court then states refuse to follow the rulings then remanded and vacated...on and on and on. Will this ever end?

I just want to say thank you. You have had the best and informative udpates on all this. I live in Illinois and purchased something during freedom week. By the time the BC Cleared the injunction was overturned and they wouldn't give it to me even though every part of the process was done. I am so excited to hear the note left on the denial because it offers a lot of hope that at some point someday our rights will be restored here in Illinois. It's been difficult to deal with all this time. Thank you again for making these videos and keeping us all informed.

Thank you, keep working.

BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS! ALWAYS BREAKING NEWS! EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO NEWS WHATSOEVER!

Great Report. Thank You. AS

Good info.... thank you for posting

Good information. We know what to look forward to next year

Thank you for the great info. Also Love Love Love Blackout Coffee

So now everyone that did not adhere to the pica law in IL is a felon?

Nice job! Thank you!

There's a conservative majority now. The conservative majority needs to pick these cases up and rule for the 2A before its too late. It only takes one more Biden term to replace a couple SC justices and get a liberal majority.

"THE GREAT OBJECT IS THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED," Patrick Henry

Thank you for this 2A update.

Just discovered your channel. Thank you for clarifying all the BS from Illinois and other backward state's laws.

Thank you for the information.

thankyou for all your videos keeping us up to date. can you find out any updates on mass cases?

The tail is wagging the dog. The military shouldn't be allowed any weapon civilians can't own.

Thank you for all of the information you provided.