California’s Last Ditch Effort To Ban “Assault Weapons” (Comparing Them To A Bowie Knife?!)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 мар 2024
- ▶ FREE Gun Law Map: uscca.co/OMlp
▶ Join USCCA + Get Free Handgun Case: uscca.co/L7Pp
Rupp v Bonta is a challenge to California's assault weapons regulations. It has recently encountered a setback, which some might see as a temporary defeat. This case is pivotal for those in California and the 9th circuit, highlighting attempts by some in the judicial community opposed to gun ownership to reinterpret the Second Amendment. This scenario is increasingly relevant in the context of differing state approaches to gun rights, particularly after the "Bruen" decision, illustrating the ongoing debate over the Second Amendment in today's legal landscape.
-------------
Must-Watch Interviews With Gun Owners Who Used Their Firearm In Self-Defense:
(Raw Video) Lyft Driver Destroys 2 Armed Robbers Trying To Steal His Car...
Watch it here ▶ • (Raw Video) Lyft Drive...
Gun Owner Loses Everything Because...
Watch it here ▶ • Gun Owner Loses Everyt...
Gun Owner Protects Loved Ones And Gets Locked Up (Self Defense Story)
Watch it here ▶ • Gun Owner Protects Lov...
He Was FORCED To Shoot 2 Armed Robbers To Save His Kids...
Watch it here ▶ • He Was FORCED To Shoot...
▶ FREE Gun Law Map: uscca.co/OMlp
▶ Join USCCA + Get Free Handgun Case: uscca.co/L7Pp
14th Amendment
Equal protection clause
Powers 10th Amendment
Rights reserved to the people
2nd Amendment
the right of the people to keep and bear arms
She should be immediately removed from her bench for Perjury in violating oath of office and Treason for levying war against the constitution of the united states violating it.
By her logic, a musket and would be outside the scope of the Second Amendment because it is not useful for self defense.
What an absolute clown.
Rights of Criminals;
Use whatever you want
Use whatever you want
Use whatever you want
Rights of Law abiding citizens;
Delay
Delay
Delay
Rights of the lawful people:
Deny
Deny
Deny
Deny
I will protect self with use of force.
Perfectly summed up, that includes civil and family as well.
Geared to protect the offender
California law enforcement uses “assault weapons” and large capacity magazines for self-defense. Why are the people not allowed that protection?
Well, you know why...
I live in La Mesa, a directly connected suburb of San Diego. San Diego by definition is liberal, thus in the higher income area of La Mesa, we deal with the upper echelon of liberalism. I am blue collar (not knocking white collar) but I feel that makes a difference in my own context .
White collars seems to want the government to think for them so long as they “feel” safe. Not to mention more women are white collar, so you get more “feelings” involved in liberalism.
I’m fighting the fight, America first citizens are here in San Diego but we are outnumbered and attempts are made to have us look bad, that we don’t care for people because we are pro 2A.
Don’t write off California. I am a land surveyor, I am qualified to tell you California is massive with many many pocket communities in the vast deserts and wilderness surrounding the major cities. Most of these people are pro 2a and conservative. We are turning red, but it will be at least one more election cycle for the pain to set in and more city folk turn to red to get our state back on track
You know why
The Second Amendment recognizes a citizen’s RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. It says nothing about ‘intended use’ or type of weapon.
We should add a constitutional amendment that if a judge is overturned by the Supreme Court x% of the time they are automatically removed from the bench. Especially in cases where the Supreme Court has already told them specifically how to do a proper analysis
Or mandatory remedial study of SCOTUS 2A Opinions and methodology. Until they are able to show that they understand and follow SCOTUS on the 2A. If they can't, they have no standing to judge 2A law.
Or make a law to ban democrat judges
@@teresamoore15- Not just 2A. All our civil rights.”
If you want your rights taken away and don't care for the right to preservation, then California is a great state to go to! :)
And then it comes to your state, then what? This is a test for a global agenda, don’t get complacent, that why it’s so f…d up here. Take a look at Colorado, Illinois and New York. Don’t forget some of these idiot lawmakers in CA also are in the House and Senate.
We have no rights, but the weather is nice….
@@slee2819 And it's so laid back. Translation: Brains on STANDBY.
@@slee2819 😂there's always the rockies
Tyranny comes at more than one level. It can come from a foreign country, your own government (federal, state, or local), criminal organizations, mobs, or even your neighbors.
Does anyone remember the case of the young teenager who shot three armed (IIRC with knives) home invaders with an AR-15 style weapon?
The pencils and pens on your desk are assault weapons 🤣😂🤣😂
And the anti Bowie Knife laws happened much too late past 1791.
And they weren’t outright bans afaik
Last time I looked, it was legal to carry a Bowie Knife in CA as long is it was visible, has that changed? {any fixed blade knife that is not visible is considered a concealed weapon in CA. Folding knives are fine.}
Miller v Bonta is back in the Ninth Circuit. It was appealed to SCOTUS, and they GVR'd it back to the Ninth, who remanded back to the district court.
Sporting use and self defense is far more common than hunting. In the same argument, guns are used without having to fire them!
Thank you Steven for such a clear explanation of the wordplay, opinions and dispositions of these cases.You stay safe as well.
St. Benitez just goes to show that San Diegans are the coolest people in California
That a new mount? Looks nice. Thanks for the update, waiting for this to get settled. Stuck in Illinois for 6 more years.
This is especially important in light of _Duncan v. Bonta_ Oral Arguments today where a few of the judges on the 9th Circuit En Banc Panel tried to compare *mags* to bowie knives.
An arm in common use for lawful purposes Can Not be banned.
Arms in Common use was said to be arms possesed for lawful purposes in numbers of 200K or greater. Caetono
Rupp challenges more bans than Miller.
Like SKS with detachable magazines
I live in NJ we really need you guys!
The makeup of the 9th is about 50-50 but the panels always have anti gun majorities for some reason
The plaintiff Rupp should have also named Newsome as governor and Newsome individually. Make the other side work harder
New Scum. Aptly renamed by President Trump!
Thanks for putting assault weapons in “” “” lol. ….. drives me nuts when they’re called that!
Thanks for keeping us up to date and educated 👍🏼
If Idaho is in the ninth circuit how do they get away with keeping their gun rights
I livr in California and I've been getting the run around by the DOJ ever since I purchased my rifle 2 months ago.
Still no word on when I can go pick it up.
Thanks Steve. Always good to hear your thoughts on this.
Judges who want to impose personal ideology and create law from the bench have no business being on the bench.
TY Steven
The thumbnail shows a weapon that wouldn't be legal in CA, even without an "assault weapons" ban.
Didn't they already say this ? They keep going back and forth
When your state is fighting to strip you of Constitutional rights, you have chosen your residence very poorly.
Rebuttal to judge Stanton would be that all arms of any sort are not to be infringed on to provide for self defense from people like judge Stanton.
so much for supreme court rulings. what a joke
Why aren't they addressing the various shotguns, rifles and pistols other than military based semi-autos that are banned in CA? For example, anything (including single shot and bolt action) chambered in .50 BMG, or any semi-auto pistol with a threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
This councilor makes some impressive 'bullet' points
Muskets also aren't used for self defense, so Stanton wouldn't allow those either.
2As intent was for self-defense and defense of the country, against outside forces or a tyrannical government. The purpose was to allow the citizenry to be equally armed as the standard foot soldier in order to augment them in defense of the country or to defend against them should they be unlawfully employed by a tyrannical government against the People.
Judge stantons verdict is null and void.
Last I checked, admittedly a few years ago, but not many, it was legal in most of California to open carry - not concealed carry - pretty much as big a sheath knife as one wants. No more than 5 years ago I regularly wore a 7” Randall fighting knife. Even had the police try to charge me with a concealed weapon charge for the way my jacket hung, but that was thrown out. If Bowie knives are the comp, maybe that is to your benefit. Knives are regulated in CA, and the state has a nasty history of regulating weapons, but in terms of common use and legality that might undermine the judges ruling.
Very cool
Hi, I watched your video "change your dominant eye".
Would you tell me, have you changed your dominant eye successfully?
Thank you.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. An AR is no more dangerous than a .22 caliber semi automatic rifle. If it's in the wrong hands it is deadly but not in responsible trained hands.
Bowie Knife owners: 👀
Fienstien tried to mince words with Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing.......In Use (Actual use) vs owned/possessed......as far as whether a firearm falls under the 2A.
second amendment never said common use was a criteria
so if someone comes up with a new design its unusual
I'm still trying to get a new spray bottle.
14th Amendment
Equal protection clause
Powers 10th Amendment
Rights reserved to the people
2nd Amendment
the right of the people to keep and bear arms
They should be tested on knowledge of firearms , if they know nothing about them how can they rule , based on emotions??
Your point about the judges on the 9th Circuit is well taken. More and more of them support the 2nd Amendment and its protection of the rights of the People. If you look at those judges, you will find that they were largely appointed by Trump.
I’m over the bs illegal can be armed but not us !? If we can bear it, it’s constitutional
They need to worry about the assault immigrants.
It's not new with the California courts they will never side for people never
9 th circuit still is
Thanks for spending the time to explain. What is the solution to fight the Commifornia?
And Caetano v. Massa2💩 set the bar for "in common use" around 30k as a worse case.😂😂😂😂😂
She cannot legally hold her bench under title 18 U.S.C. section 1918.
The only way to get shed of these rouge, rebellious activist judges is through impeachment. I would like to see SCOTUS point out the errors and legal stupidity of their opinions with Red Ink and notes of ridicule in the margins, also in red ink. As if they were grading a pupil
Do not comply with any of Californias unconstitutional restrictions on the second amendment....FGN
Maybe buy another
water pick for flossing eye's.
I have a really hard time giving a flying hoot what is going on in Commiefornia
except it’s cosmetically oozing out to your state as well whether you’re aware of it or not.🥺
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses..."
-- Dennis
California . . .😝🤮🤬
The ability to form a militia, which is necessary for a free state, is predicated on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Vultures.
NUKES are "dangerous AND unusual".
In 1791 the people owned the same firearms as the military
My 'non self defense' purpose is ENTERTAINMENT. Most anything can be entertaining if employed properly. Boom. Which brings to mind high explosives. Now there's something at may or may not be "usual" depending on your definition. Just don't try ordering C4 from Amazon. "Unusual" would be an atomic bomb since there are only a handful of countries that have any at all much less the skill to construct them. That's about where the definition ends.
this company is an embarrassment
What makes you say that?
The only dangerous and unusual weapons are nukes, chemical weapons and the such…. Anything else is pretty much in commune with the people or military
This scenario is increasingly relevant in the context of differing state approaches to gun rights, particularly after the "Bruen" decision, illustrating the ongoing debate over the Second Amendment in today's legal landscape.
California tries to set the standard for everyone.
Can we put this guy on the Supreme Court?
Hi: When I first heard of the “Bowie Knife ban of the 1800s, I am sure today those knife bans would and are unconstitutional! The gun grabbing community uses a “wrong” to make the second wrong, not a right. Knife, ax, sword, gun, club, bayonet, cannon, etc., are all arms. Because a bad law was used as an example by a “Historian” that is dubious in his/ her revisionist view of their anti gun agenda needs to be addressed in the next round of the appeal process.
I doubt they are “errors “ in her analysis… more likely an intentional attempt to bambosal people by trying to make her opinion sound legitimate.
California has no legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to Ban anything,nor does any other states.
14th amendment section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Second amendment
THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
No politician has any legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to pass any form of weapons laws. No judge or law enforcement officials have any legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to enforce any form of weapons(ARMS)laws whatsoever they are all state officials.
All of that and the Congress used Article 1 Section 8 Line 3, the Commerce Clause to grant themselves powers to Infringe the 2A that are not given them by the Constitution. The 2A would have read "shall not be infringed, except by the Congress, and the Commerce Clause"
It does not.
@@teresamoore15 useing the commerce clause is in violation of the enumeration clause of the 9th amendment.
Very accurate and well quoted. But only those who believe in the Rule of Law based on the Constitution would adhere to it.
Activist judges are and are appointed by DEMs. DEMs have always hated this Country, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights due to the opportunities they support and the individual freedoms they protect.
2025 Department of Defense Budget Request Disarms America. tgp
32nd, 19 March 2024
These arguments are intellectually dishonest. The 2A covers conduct. This is my problem with the "dangerous and unusual" test. If you are using a weapon for lawful purposes, that conduct is covered. It doesn't matter if it is unusual or dangerous.
And one more.... all weapons of war are used for "self defense." Nuclear weapons are the ultimate example of this concept.😂😂😂😂😂
What planet is the dishonorable "judge" Stanton from? Her opinions are so far outside of constitutional reality it makes my brain hurt.
Am I wrong or is "Common use" dangerous because whatever is destined to surpass today's common firearms could be banned before they become common.
STOP SENDING ME ADS
This is a joke of company and needs to be stopped
The time making this video would have been better spent defending people who pay for your "insurance" instead of denying self defense claims.
Thousands of USCCA Members have acted legally in self-defense and tens of millions of dollars have been paid out on their behalf by the insurance company to defend them.
I bought this gun for the sole purpose to defend my home therefore it falls under the “Defense Weapon” category not the “Assault Weapon” 😂
Shouldn't she not be a judge?
The obviously right answer was that it was unconstitutional to ban bowie knives. Just because something was done at the founding doesn't mean it was automatically consistent with law.