NO BS, if anyone wants to repeal the NFA, Your case needs more than bumper sticker comments. > Go after the "Tax Stamp" That is the biggest and easiest part of the NFA to challenge in court.
Butler v US would make NFA null and void which was decided before the NFA was enacted. 2A being shall not be infringed leaves all Gun regulation to the states if that states constitution doesn’t share the same wording in its 2A.
Here’s the issue with repealing the NFA. It is not machine guns or SBRs. It is pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails. They would then be legal. Do you REALLY want people to now have those legally so they can make bombs and cocktails at home?? Have you seen what they intend to do with those in Seattle?? Terrorists would love those to be legal. If we repeal the NFA those are then legal destructive devices for use. It is not about silencers and machine guns. Those are not a big deal. It’s destructive devices that are the stuff the home grown terrorist want legal.
@@DaveL9170 did antifa get some legal voucher to have theirs? These "preventative" laws do nothing to stop people frome getting these anyway. These things are slapped together in people's garages in spite of the law. It is not the governments responsibility to protect you from every threat. It's yours.
@@fakecubed exactly 💯 The could care less. The 2A isn't five pages of lawyer speak. It's written so any common man can understand it, and it means exactly what it says which is "all gun laws are illegal". The parasites don't like what it tells them they can't do. The people need to cut ties with voluntarily complying with illegal mandates from criminals, and start living like free folks again.
Lawyers and politicians don't care about some American"s rights. Politicians are the first on violate the constitutional rights, because they are not having consequences nor are called accountable for it. and there is the problem.
They can just ram through another big bill like the nfa. It's a never-ending battle. They can do it all at once and then we have to fight small fights to climb back up, just to see it happen again. I think it will take state support and maybe even secession.
States just need to form smaller sub governments and openly defy federal overreach. They will be so scared of an actual secession that they will be forced to back off. The Fed is what made america the super power it is today, but it is also the only thing that can bring it to its knees
@@SCH292 absolutely correct. I myself don't usually buy guns,cars, bikes with the thought of resale value on my mind. I buy them do stuff to them, make them mine, and have fun with them. I may be an oddball though.
@@SCH292 Damn, that sucks for them. Maybe they should realize that "investments" have risk, start enjoying the things they buy and realize its a pretty low move to oppose someones rights so you can maintain some wealth... Nearing tyrannical behavior actually if you ask me.
Well by the wording of the Supreme Court's definition, that means we should be able to own the same automatic weapons just as the military does. Which would mean the NFA is an unconstitutional law against law abiding citizens, therefore negating all NFA laws.
Well, how I understand it you can own a automatic weapon. However, you can’t build one. So you have to get someone who owns one to sell one to you that has already existed. They’re very expensive because they’re limited.
If SCOTUS refuses to hear a case they should have to repay all our fees! You would think it would be unconditional for them to refuse to hear a case! They refuse almost all 2A cases !
They do it on purpose to leave it to the states, we are about at the maximum amount of federal gun laws before this whole union falls apart and the politicians know it.
@@gcanaday1 yes, the AFT is doing a poor job leaving things to the states... as well as the NFA, IRS, DHS, and the Department of Education. Even the US Fish/Wildlife and EPA are consolidating their power over states and their people.
Registration is unconstitutional. you have to look at it this way: What happens if you dont register the NFA firearm? Its taken away from you, and most cases other firearms you own too. Now you are a felon, which probibits you from owning firearms. We dont force people to register their words, what if they write a diary, do they have to register it with the federal government? No. This is because it would be an infringement on the 1st ammendment to have to register your words.
@Paleotech1 youve asked that same question to multiple ppl in this comment section, wtf does it matter? The Constitution was made to easily read and understand, its simple and clear.
Plain and simple, the 2nd amendment says “being necessary to the security of a free state,” and without access to the same hardware as the military, we are unable to ensure that the citizens (the militia) will be able to fight off a tyrannical govt if it were to ever deploy the military on its own citizens. Automatic weapons and suppressors (at a minimum) should be legal as they could be used against us by a tyrannical govt.
That still wouldn't be effective as a registry as the government would have to hit every single FFL in the country to gather all that information. That's also not assuming the gun wasn't privately transferred later. And still completely excludes 80% receivers.
They are already collecting those forms, but using the IRS to do it, one guy's gun store had the IRS come and take the 4473's. They were wondering why the IRS would need those forms, turns out they were doing it to hand them over to the ATF.
@@NG-ly8xx yessir, I've never been anywhere as corrupt as a courthouse.. People claim corruption is all over, and in all places, but I've never seen anywhere as corrupt as local courts. I'm sure it gets worse as you go closer to Federal.
Anytime you check a box saying yes you are an American Citizen, you are admitting that you are a citizen of the District of Columbia( Washington D. C.) This places you under another set of laws and regulations that is not the original set that our Founding Fathers implemented. This would perfectly explain how the govt has been able to trample every right that was granted and guaranteed to us from the beginning, with little to no pushback or attempted reversals sought to repeal all unjust decisions.
@@jamesmurphy8676 if we could just get a large enough group together one day, and decided then and there to go, it could be done. Too many pussies waiting on shit to change it happen, cause they aren't ready to be free again.
@@jamesmurphy8676 but even that being said, I still believe we could do it, we just gotta pick a date. There is still enough of us. More than. Stay safe brothers
No, but you can follow in Missouri's footsteps and blocade enforcement and punish cops that comply with the feds... the states and the people are duty bound to interpose whenever the federal government oversteps its delegated powers.
The problem with that thought process is that while you may keep state and local LE from infringing on your 2A rights, the feds will be more than willing to do it. No, the state and local LE won’t help, but they also won’t stand in the way of the feds bending you over either...
Federal Law supercedes State Law. Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and is supposed to supercede Federal Law and State Law. Over a Century of Treason and Sedition within the Federal and State Governments has brainwashed everyone with domestic "Police" fueled Terrorism.
I personally know Patrick from Missouri liberty alliance. SAPA litterally does nothing at all. The feds haven't worked with state agencies in over a decade. Missouri has laws that mirror fed we ral laws. So you will just go to state prison instead of federal prison. Either way you are going to prison. It isn't anything for Missouri to brag about
In my humble opinion Scalia was wrong because Heller only addressed the question of the 2nd as an individual right, It is obvious the 2nd Amendment Infers both an individual right as well as a collective right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution clearly states that the Militia is apart of the Armed Forces of the United States and since the people not in the Active Army comprise the Militia they are entitled to the same weapons as the rest of the Military.
I consider myself very pro 2a but I am sure folks would regret if the average citizen had access to military weapons. This is the kind of the thing our people need to stop saying in public.
When was the last time the employee's (government) gave its employer (us) rights back? Wait a sec... why is the employee telling its employers what to do? 🙏⭐🇺🇸
Fear of social uprising by citizens with military grade weapons motivate those in a position to reframe the treatment of the second amendment act against the intent of the 2nd amendment. There are lunatics and zealots in the population that even I don't wish to have a gun,, but regulations will only be followed by law abiding people.
Not only are Americans contending with Federal legislators, they’re also culturally opposed to the guys who have financially invested in firearms which values have been artificially inflated. Imagine being owner of an M60 you spent $60k is only worth $5k now. On top of that many wealthy machine gun collectors have the financial means and ear of influential people. That’s why de-criminalization on a local level is a small but substantial solution vs trying to negotiate with people who have an exceedingly large financial investment on their firearms continued regulation.
Thank you so much for this episode of "Gun Gripes"! I've never been interested in history, but I'm learning to educate myself in certain areas of interest, as of this, as I grow older. Excellent content!
Wait until you learn that there was no defense attorney or defendant or amicus or other brief filed in Miller. The Court ruled solely on the prosecution’s brief.
I love these videos. Historical context and minutia is incredibly important in understanding law origin and the legality and constitutionality of law. Would love more of these types of videos and more on this topic particularly
And the Heller v DC case did more harm to gun rights than good because the Supreme Court said that our individual natural rights to own firearms is not unlimited. That's what they said after they acknowledged that we have individual rights to own guns.
The Army does use short-barreled shotguns. They are used for breaching and were used in trench warfare. My old unit had some pretty sweet 12GA shorties.
I just want to thank you for making your videos. I turned 18 about a week ago and I bought an autoloading shotgun the day after my birthday. I know most of what I know about guns thanks to you, so thank you.
Iv'e watched this video so many times. I never noticed until I watched it with headphones, that when Eric is making his first point, Chad is quietly agreeing with him in the background, and he keeps saying "emm hmm"......."uhhh Huh"..."yup".....I found this hilarious in the most awesome way! I love you guys so freaking much!!! keep up the great work!
The entire problem with the 2nd Amendment has to do with the phrase "well regulated". It does NOT refer to any sort of regulation that a government body may impose. Back then, and to this day, when pertaining to firearms, "well regulated" refers to firearms accuracy as well as their owners' ability to use then properly. That's it. Period. End of statement.
Best gun gripe EVER!!!!! Finally you gave people a way to understand how conflicting the way the nfa is to our rights. A lot of foward movement is being made for the 2nd amendment as we speak and hopefully we can keep the traction going!!!
I've always said repeal the NFA instead of abolishing the ATF. Abolishing the ATF just puts the duties of the ATF in the hands of the FBI. Who is by far much better funded and staffed
Here’s the issue with repealing the NFA. It is not machine guns or SBRs. It is pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails. They would then be legal. Do you REALLY want people to now have those legally so they can make bombs and cocktails at home?? Have you seen what they intend to do with those in Seattle?? Terrorists would love those to be legal. If we repeal the NFA those are then legal destructive devices for use. It is not about silencers and machine guns. Those are not a big deal. It’s destructive devices that are the stuff the home grown terrorist want legal.
@@DaveL9170 I hate this argument for multiple reasons. 1. Criminals have no need to the laws that make them criminals, outside of how to best circumvent them. 2. Everything is a weapon. The intent to do harm is what enables the tools with which it can be done. Criminals in the UK use drain cleaner as impromptu acid.
Well DC v. Heller states that any item in “common use” can’t be banned… How many taxed SBR, SBS, and suppressors are there? I been there a lot more “common use” now than people think.. and that would make the NFA Unconstitutional….
I believe that if they are uncommon it is only due to unconstitutional laws that have been in place for decades. Ofcoarse they won't be in common use if so many loopholes have had to be maneuvered for so long. I feel common use shouldn't be an argument; especially if it has already been hindered via government regulations.
Great video, guys. You make a very compelling case for challenging the constitutionality of the NFA and related firearms laws. Like many here, I would love to see that happen.
I agree! I spoke with my district congressman over the phone and voiced my concerns about the suppressor tax and paperwork here in VA! They should be an over the shelf safety item and no more than ear plugs to purchase and own them with the same regulation on them as a firearm when it comes to felons etc
Well regulated means not just being armed but being trained in their use, plus drilled to let commander march/move them efficiently around the battle field. Differentiates a militia from an armed mob.
infringed :act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on. i hear where you are coming from but i disagree with you yes courts may have determined some regulation isn't unconstitutional but by the second amendment saying shall not be infringed it automatically makes the nfa and all gun laws unconstitional because even if buying an nfa item costed 1 penny and took a day to get it still would be harder to obtain then simply not having the law so the law itself makes it harder to get guns the only way the nfa would be constitutional is it didnt make the process any harder to obtain firearms but since it does its automatically infringes the second amendment and is null and void
The govt has gone tyrannical and cannot be reigned in by legal means. The Supreme Court isn’t the last word on our rights the govt didn’t give us in the first place. Their job is to secure our rights not usurp them.
US v Rock Island Armory - a district court rules the 1986 Hayes Amendment to the NFA unconstitutional. This is the amendment that outlawed making new transferable machine guns. So NFA has already been ruled unconstitutional twice. Yet somehow it still exists. A proper Miller application would make it three strikes. Has anyone else noticed that when any other law gets rules unconstitutional, it is immediately void. But if it is a gun law, well we need to give the government a year, or 5, or 10 to tweak the law. And we will just assume the modified law is constitutional unless it comes back for another case being appealed. Definitely the forgotten (or second or third class) right.
There has been some worthwhile literature printed by Skousen “The 5000 Year Leap” and Barton “Original Intent”. The Framers of the Bill of Rights and our Constitution knew the perils of a federal government that had too much power given to it. (10th amendment) When litigating anything having to do with our “Rights”, we are obligated to consider constitutional law and intent, NOT case law. As we have learned from this outstanding post, there have been judicial decisions that are, at best, suspect. Original intent should weigh heavily in every decision.
No, and I doubt we will ever see any changes to it either, at least none for the better. Until we the people change our attitudes towards our rights and grow a pair, we will continue to have our rights slowly stripped away.
Exactly. It's our choice. We have convinced each other that it is the opinions of politicians that dictate the state of the 2A. Not true. It's up to us. That's a good thing.
I can tell you that being in the military I am issued a Remington 870 with a 10 inch barrel and no stock for breaching and the like. So yeah, I’d say short barrel shotguns are viable for a militia.
How about: “Cars need mufflers but pewpews don’t? Even though they’re louder & do hearing damage? & mufflers are “firearms”?! I don’t see how it holds up at all...
You guys need to get your bar cards and go challenge and fight in the courts. Your knowledge and arguments are better than most lawyers I’ve ever heard. You’ve done your research and make a strong case!!!
It's possible. Just not likely because it isn't up to a politician. It's our choice. Everything We The People have wanted badly enough......we've gotten it. The problem is compliance with past legislation. End that, and we can move forward.
For the sawed off shotgun - militaries now use shorter breaching shotguns - a double barrel sawed to a shorter length would work in this regard. It is a military arm.
Other SCOTUS rulings have established that a right cannot be converted into a fee or tax. Thus you cannot charge a fee or tax on the exercising of a right.
Would love to see the hole NFA get removed but I agree we need to chip away at it the same as they do with our rights. Taking one big bite at it probably will be hard to get over.
Preaching to the choir guys. It all comes down to a TRULY unbiased supreme court agreeing to hear a case that correctly addresses the issue. Since the supreme court is a political institution whose members serve for life, once the Democrats pack the court our rights will be forsaken. The tipping point has already been reached.
currently the republicans own the supreme court but haven't changed anything relating to guns. Lets not pretend the republican's like gun rights either.
Idk about the boys and I needing an Abrams, but we sure could use a pair of strikers and a Bradley and might as well pick up a few crates of stingers since we now have apparent air threats. The 2a as written allows us all of that equipment.
To start wouldn’t it be easier to have the ATF change the designation of a “machine gun” to let’s say “an automatic firearm chambered in .50 cal or greater”? If the ATF under the direction of the President can change the definition to include more firearms/accessories then they should be able to exclude firearms. The case could be made that a “machine gun” is a high caliber fully automatic weapon used primarily in military conflicts”. Then flood the civilian market with rifles that are no longer “machine guns”. I think that would be the quickest way to get the NFA repealed because once millions of people now own an automatic firearm(that is not a machine gun and since their price would drop like a rock) it would be impossible for any future President to attempt to reclassify “machine guns” as it would make millions and millions of Americans felons and be a huge political nightmare for our republican elected representatives. They would have to fight to stop it. Force their hand.
Section 242 of title 18 should nullify the qualified immunity of police and all government agents ability to be exempt from being punished for Righrs violations,but somehow it doesn't.
These are all arguments that should have been addressed at the inception of the ATF and the NFA. Now you've allowed it to become established and it has festered.
Where as the commerce clause authorizes congress to regulate commerce, it can be argued that it does not stipulate that they can treat one form of commerce differently than another
If you read the next to last paragraph of the Federalist Papers #46, the intention of the 2nd Amendment is clearly explained...it's so that the individual states have some reassurance that if they agreed to be governed by the prospective US government, the people within their state can defend that state against the US government if the need ever arose. That's why "shall not be infringed" should be interpreted as, "the federal government shall make no law governing the ownership or possession of any weapon, period". That may not be a popular interpretation for people that live in nanny states, but that was the true purpose of adding the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. So all Federal laws regulating ownership or possession of weapons are unconstitutional. That would leave it up to the individual states to decide how they want to regulate weapons within their borders, as long as those regulations adhere to said states' own Constitution. The problem with that now is that after the poorly thought out 14th Amendment was passed, the privileges and immunities clause stipulates that the State governments can't enact any laws that the US Constitution bars the Federal government from enacting, so now neither the Federal or State governments can constitutionally make any laws that regulate the possession or ownership of any weapons. That leaves it all up to local governments to make such laws. I'm not sure why I never hear any gun enthusiasts bring this to light. I typically hear pro gun people just say that they understand the federal government should be allowed to make "reasonable" laws regarding weapons. I definitely don't.
This is what I have been saying and arguing for years about. Because the fed gubbermint chooses not to take our constitution at its word, we have several unconstitutional laws.
I share all the video's that y'all share with all of us because it is all very goid things that y'all bring to the table for all of us to know ......... and i think y'all very much for this ......
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
NO BS, if anyone wants to repeal the NFA, Your case needs more than bumper sticker comments. > Go after the "Tax Stamp" That is the biggest and easiest part of the NFA to challenge in court.
The tax stamp and inordinate wait time would easily fall in court if challenged nowadays
So you're saying a case.... A lawsuit will get rid of tax stamps and repeal the NFA? No, violence will get rid of unconstitutional laws.
@@RedReaper303 .. nice try government.. nice try. Go look for saps on someone else's comment thread.
The tax stamp is no different than a poll tax
@@RedReaper303 yep. The people have been conditioned to believe, truly believe that polite emails work. They only delay the inevitable.
“Fees” “taxes” and “permit fees” are the government’s way of “selling your rights back to you”
Also, constitution doesn’t delegate right to tax the individual so unconstitutional on its face
A monetary penalty is only a deterrent to the lower classes.
Shall NOT BE INFRINGED!
Fact !
Butler v US would make NFA null and void which was decided before the NFA was enacted. 2A being shall not be infringed leaves all Gun regulation to the states if that states constitution doesn’t share the same wording in its 2A.
If you can repeal the NFA, take the AFT with it.
NFA needs repealed. 80F needs disbanded and imprisoned. No parol. For the murders in Waco and across the country.
Turn the ATF into a store instead of an agency
Here’s the issue with repealing the NFA. It is not machine guns or SBRs. It is pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails. They would then be legal. Do you REALLY want people to now have those legally so they can make bombs and cocktails at home?? Have you seen what they intend to do with those in Seattle?? Terrorists would love those to be legal. If we repeal the NFA those are then legal destructive devices for use. It is not about silencers and machine guns. Those are not a big deal. It’s destructive devices that are the stuff the home grown terrorist want legal.
@@DaveL9170 did antifa get some legal voucher to have theirs? These "preventative" laws do nothing to stop people frome getting these anyway. These things are slapped together in people's garages in spite of the law. It is not the governments responsibility to protect you from every threat. It's yours.
@@DaveL9170
If somebody really wants to make a Molotov do you really think the NFA is preventing them from filling a bottle with gas?
I've always thought it was strange that poll taxes are illegal but NFA tax stamps aren't.
They are a form of poll tax, and that can be challenged in court.
It took a constitutional amendment to make poll tax illegal.
The Constitution clearly states: “ Shall not be infringed “… It blows my mind that it’s not recognized by most lawmakers…
They recognize it, they just don't care.
@@fakecubed exactly 💯
The could care less. The 2A isn't five pages of lawyer speak. It's written so any common man can understand it, and it means exactly what it says which is "all gun laws are illegal". The parasites don't like what it tells them they can't do. The people need to cut ties with voluntarily complying with illegal mandates from criminals, and start living like free folks again.
No legal education right?
Lawyers and politicians don't care about some American"s rights. Politicians are the first on violate the constitutional rights, because they are not having consequences nor are called accountable for it. and there is the problem.
The courts did not recognize it either... until the Supreme Court Heller decision and even with Bruen it's uphill.
Repel the tax part of the nfa. If we take it apart one piece at a time then eventually it will disappear.
They can just ram through another big bill like the nfa. It's a never-ending battle. They can do it all at once and then we have to fight small fights to climb back up, just to see it happen again. I think it will take state support and maybe even secession.
States just need to form smaller sub governments and openly defy federal overreach. They will be so scared of an actual secession that they will be forced to back off. The Fed is what made america the super power it is today, but it is also the only thing that can bring it to its knees
Yes the NFA can be repealed
That cat looks 1000% dissatisfied in having its picture taken.
It can be but we can say..."Some or MOST' of those Machinegun Fudds will not like it because it will "de-value" their MG.
@@SCH292 absolutely correct. I myself don't usually buy guns,cars, bikes with the thought of resale value on my mind. I buy them do stuff to them, make them mine, and have fun with them. I may be an oddball though.
@@SCH292 Damn, that sucks for them. Maybe they should realize that "investments" have risk, start enjoying the things they buy and realize its a pretty low move to oppose someones rights so you can maintain some wealth... Nearing tyrannical behavior actually if you ask me.
It shouldn't be obeyed in the first place. "Any LAW that is repugnant to the Constitution is NULL AND VOID" James Madison
Well by the wording of the Supreme Court's definition, that means we should be able to own the same automatic weapons just as the military does.
Which would mean the NFA is an unconstitutional law against law abiding citizens, therefore negating all NFA laws.
All the shit that we gave to the Taliban should have been given to the CMP to be distributed to the militia by that logic.
@@krockpotbroccoli65 I’d be the first in line for a fresh M4.
what about the founding fathers explainng why the 2nd is important? they left qotes
Well, how I understand it you can own a automatic weapon. However, you can’t build one. So you have to get someone who owns one to sell one to you that has already existed. They’re very expensive because they’re limited.
@@zophos5786 yes. The law passed in 1986. It's totally unconstitutional.
If SCOTUS refuses to hear a case they should have to repay all our fees! You would think it would be unconditional for them to refuse to hear a case! They refuse almost all 2A cases !
That's because they know they would have to overturn all the laws that were put against us law abiding citizens.
I agree. It must be nice to have a job where you can pick and choose what you want or don't want to do.
They do it on purpose to leave it to the states, we are about at the maximum amount of federal gun laws before this whole union falls apart and the politicians know it.
@@someguy5444 well, the ATF is a federal agency. They're doing a poor job of leaving things to the states.
@@gcanaday1 yes, the AFT is doing a poor job leaving things to the states... as well as the NFA, IRS, DHS, and the Department of Education. Even the US Fish/Wildlife and EPA are consolidating their power over states and their people.
Registration is unconstitutional. you have to look at it this way: What happens if you dont register the NFA firearm? Its taken away from you, and most cases other firearms you own too. Now you are a felon, which probibits you from owning firearms. We dont force people to register their words, what if they write a diary, do they have to register it with the federal government? No. This is because it would be an infringement on the 1st ammendment to have to register your words.
No legal education right?
@@Paleotech1 I do actually.
Stop making sense
@Paleotech1 youve asked that same question to multiple ppl in this comment section, wtf does it matter? The Constitution was made to easily read and understand, its simple and clear.
Plain and simple, the 2nd amendment says “being necessary to the security of a free state,” and without access to the same hardware as the military, we are unable to ensure that the citizens (the militia) will be able to fight off a tyrannical govt if it were to ever deploy the military on its own citizens. Automatic weapons and suppressors (at a minimum) should be legal as they could be used against us by a tyrannical govt.
It’s also makes things prohibitively expensive arguable infringing on your rights in regards to auto’s and belt fed accessories etc
They might be ‘prohibited’ to make a registry but there’s a reason the new 4473 has all the firearm info on the front page now
That still wouldn't be effective as a registry as the government would have to hit every single FFL in the country to gather all that information. That's also not assuming the gun wasn't privately transferred later. And still completely excludes 80% receivers.
@@hardlylivin6602 still a start
@@hardlylivin6602 They are playing the long game.
They are already collecting those forms, but using the IRS to do it, one guy's gun store had the IRS come and take the 4473's. They were wondering why the IRS would need those forms, turns out they were doing it to hand them over to the ATF.
With states asserting their 10th ammendment rights to not adhere to federal laws I would argue that federal laws only apply on Federal land
Then why do you trust a corrupt court to restore your right that they cannot take to begin with
@@NG-ly8xx yessir, I've never been anywhere as corrupt as a courthouse.. People claim corruption is all over, and in all places, but I've never seen anywhere as corrupt as local courts. I'm sure it gets worse as you go closer to Federal.
10th Amendment didn't help the South in the 1860s.
Anytime you check a box saying yes you are an American Citizen, you are admitting that you are a citizen of the District of Columbia( Washington D. C.) This places you under another set of laws and regulations that is not the original set that our Founding Fathers implemented. This would perfectly explain how the govt has been able to trample every right that was granted and guaranteed to us from the beginning, with little to no pushback or attempted reversals sought to repeal all unjust decisions.
Crazy thing is the government can’t own land. Yet they still managed to own land
I've always thought, what if we just adamantly stood out ground stating "shall not be infringed" while holding firearms.
Pretty hard to disagree.
Just as intended.
If you did that you'd win. Problem is most Americans are not pro gun and the ones that are don't care enough to unite fully as a loud vocal majority.
Too many plastic patriots
@@jamesmurphy8676 if we could just get a large enough group together one day, and decided then and there to go, it could be done.
Too many pussies waiting on shit to change it happen, cause they aren't ready to be free again.
@@jamesmurphy8676 but even that being said, I still believe we could do it, we just gotta pick a date. There is still enough of us. More than. Stay safe brothers
No, but you can follow in Missouri's footsteps and blocade enforcement and punish cops that comply with the feds... the states and the people are duty bound to interpose whenever the federal government oversteps its delegated powers.
The problem with that thought process is that while you may keep state and local LE from infringing on your 2A rights, the feds will be more than willing to do it. No, the state and local LE won’t help, but they also won’t stand in the way of the feds bending you over either...
@@DJ_Death_Star That's the truth.
But that law doesn’t say they would PROTECT there citizens against a over reaching gubment... that is a bs law
Federal Law supercedes State Law.
Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and is supposed to supercede Federal Law and State Law.
Over a Century of Treason and Sedition within the Federal and State Governments has brainwashed everyone with domestic "Police" fueled Terrorism.
I personally know Patrick from Missouri liberty alliance. SAPA litterally does nothing at all. The feds haven't worked with state agencies in over a decade. Missouri has laws that mirror fed we ral laws. So you will just go to state prison instead of federal prison. Either way you are going to prison. It isn't anything for Missouri to brag about
My favorite Gun Gripes episode to date, well thought out presentation
repeal the NFA and the Hughes Amendment
Repeal NFA and Hughes amendment
In my humble opinion Scalia was wrong because Heller only addressed the question of the 2nd as an individual right, It is obvious the 2nd Amendment Infers both an individual right as well as a collective right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution clearly states that the Militia is apart of the Armed Forces of the United States and since the people not in the Active Army comprise the Militia they are entitled to the same weapons as the rest of the Military.
I don’t understand how people naively think the govt is gonna relinquish any power it’s taken. The brain fuckery discussion on the NFA is useless.
I consider myself very pro 2a but I am sure folks would regret if the average citizen had access to military weapons. This is the kind of the thing our people need to stop saying in public.
When was the last time the employee's (government) gave its employer (us) rights back? Wait a sec... why is the employee telling its employers what to do? 🙏⭐🇺🇸
Fear of social uprising by citizens with military grade weapons motivate those in a position to reframe the treatment of the second amendment act against the intent of the 2nd amendment. There are lunatics and zealots in the population that even I don't wish to have a gun,, but regulations will only be followed by law abiding people.
Set a petition up. We need someone who has a follower base to start the legal case. I would sign it and I bet most 2A rights members on here would
Not only are Americans contending with Federal legislators, they’re also culturally opposed to the guys who have financially invested in firearms which values have been artificially inflated.
Imagine being owner of an M60 you spent $60k is only worth $5k now.
On top of that many wealthy machine gun collectors have the financial means and ear of influential people.
That’s why de-criminalization on a local level is a small but substantial solution vs trying to negotiate with people who have an exceedingly large financial investment on their firearms continued regulation.
@T G all of what you said is completely irrelevant to the op
A well regulated militia's arms cannot be defined by a judge. Especially one who's never fired a gun.
Thank you so much for this episode of "Gun Gripes"! I've never been interested in history, but I'm learning to educate myself in certain areas of interest, as of this, as I grow older. Excellent content!
Wait until you learn that there was no defense attorney or defendant or amicus or other brief filed in Miller. The Court ruled solely on the prosecution’s brief.
Yep, government pulls bullshit like that whenever they can to legislate from the bench, like the tyrants they are
Yup, US government arguing against an empty room and they STILL could only maintain the law on a narrow technicality.
@David Villalba Right, but *you* "David Villabla" are NOT a *sheep* huh? Its just everyone else.
If the government can use it against the population then the population must access to the same arms.
The only weapons that should be banned world wide are Nukes and Bio weapons.
I love these videos. Historical context and minutia is incredibly important in understanding law origin and the legality and constitutionality of law. Would love more of these types of videos and more on this topic particularly
if we can't get it repealed, we can get it nullified.
We’re already heading toward nullification.
@@hardlylivin6602 not fast enough
@@killer13324 I agree, but we are getting there.
Ohoho were getting there
@@firstnamelastname8865 don't give me hope
I’ve gone down yalls videos rabbit hole and yalls speaking points have literally given me some hope that we could get some ground back! Thanks
And the Heller v DC case did more harm to gun rights than good because the Supreme Court said that our individual natural rights to own firearms is not unlimited. That's what they said after they acknowledged that we have individual rights to own guns.
100%
The Army does use short-barreled shotguns. They are used for breaching and were used in trench warfare. My old unit had some pretty sweet 12GA shorties.
Great deep dive guys. Keep it up.
I enjoy the longer videos as much as the shorter ones. Good content is good content whether it's in 15 min or 2 hour increments.
I suggest going after the suppressor tax stamp first, then let the snow ball grow
I just want to thank you for making your videos. I turned 18 about a week ago and I bought an autoloading shotgun the day after my birthday. I know most of what I know about guns thanks to you, so thank you.
If I has a gun genie, that would be one of my 3 wishes.
Iv'e watched this video so many times. I never noticed until I watched it with headphones, that when Eric is making his first point, Chad is quietly agreeing with him in the background, and he keeps saying "emm hmm"......."uhhh Huh"..."yup".....I found this hilarious in the most awesome way! I love you guys so freaking much!!! keep up the great work!
These are the conversations I love.
I truly appreciate all of the work you guys put in to bringing us great content like this!!!
The entire problem with the 2nd Amendment has to do with the phrase "well regulated". It does NOT refer to any sort of regulation that a government body may impose. Back then, and to this day, when pertaining to firearms, "well regulated" refers to firearms accuracy as well as their owners' ability to use then properly. That's it. Period. End of statement.
Best gun gripe EVER!!!!! Finally you gave people a way to understand how conflicting the way the nfa is to our rights. A lot of foward movement is being made for the 2nd amendment as we speak and hopefully we can keep the traction going!!!
I've always said repeal the NFA instead of abolishing the ATF. Abolishing the ATF just puts the duties of the ATF in the hands of the FBI. Who is by far much better funded and staffed
I’ve always said this too. They will just replace the ATF or make a new agency to go after gun owners
Two issues: Alcohol and tobacco. If you abolish the ATF who is going to investigate those? Yep. The fbi. And they’ll wayyyyyyy more heavy handed!!!!
Here’s the issue with repealing the NFA. It is not machine guns or SBRs. It is pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails. They would then be legal. Do you REALLY want people to now have those legally so they can make bombs and cocktails at home?? Have you seen what they intend to do with those in Seattle?? Terrorists would love those to be legal. If we repeal the NFA those are then legal destructive devices for use. It is not about silencers and machine guns. Those are not a big deal. It’s destructive devices that are the stuff the home grown terrorist want legal.
@@DaveL9170 I hate this argument for multiple reasons.
1. Criminals have no need to the laws that make them criminals, outside of how to best circumvent them.
2. Everything is a weapon. The intent to do harm is what enables the tools with which it can be done. Criminals in the UK use drain cleaner as impromptu acid.
That would be even worse! It's been blatantly obvious how corrupt the fbi is and that's the last dam group who you'd want to give the keys over to.
Barry would be proud of you guys, sensible and wholehearted ambassadors of the 2A in it's entirety !!
Keep their feet to the fire
🙏 🇺🇲 💪
These 2 idiots here said registration is constitutional... so many wolfs in sheep’s clothing
Well DC v. Heller states that any item in “common use” can’t be banned… How many taxed SBR, SBS, and suppressors are there? I been there a lot more “common use” now than people think.. and that would make the NFA Unconstitutional….
You missed the part of the Heller v. DC where the Supreme Court said our natural individual rights is unlimited.
I believe that if they are uncommon it is only due to unconstitutional laws that have been in place for decades. Ofcoarse they won't be in common use if so many loopholes have had to be maneuvered for so long. I feel common use shouldn't be an argument; especially if it has already been hindered via government regulations.
Great video, guys. You make a very compelling case for challenging the constitutionality of the NFA and related firearms laws. Like many here, I would love to see that happen.
I like staring at the face of the person who isn't talking. Studying their every reaction, peering into their soul
Sociopaths be paths.
I agree! I spoke with my district congressman over the phone and voiced my concerns about the suppressor tax and paperwork here in VA! They should be an over the shelf safety item and no more than ear plugs to purchase and own them with the same regulation on them as a firearm when it comes to felons etc
This aged well after Bruen. The NFA is not consistent with the 2A's "text, history and tradition". It would not hold up in court under that scrutiny
Well regulated means not just being armed but being trained in their use, plus drilled to let commander march/move them efficiently around the battle field. Differentiates a militia from an armed mob.
infringed :act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
i hear where you are coming from but i disagree with you yes courts may have determined some regulation isn't unconstitutional but by the second amendment saying shall not be infringed it automatically makes the nfa and all gun laws unconstitional because even if buying an nfa item costed 1 penny and took a day to get it still would be harder to obtain then simply not having the law so the law itself makes it harder to get guns the only way the nfa would be constitutional is it didnt make the process any harder to obtain firearms but since it does its automatically infringes the second amendment and is null and void
That's all true but you can't argue that in court and be successful.
@Jason Shults I agree with that but my comment was sticking with the theme of the video.
The govt has gone tyrannical and cannot be reigned in by legal means. The Supreme Court isn’t the last word on our rights the govt didn’t give us in the first place. Their job is to secure our rights not usurp them.
You young men put forth a lot of thought provoking information, and your research and effort is appreciated.
Excellent discussion, we’ve been to mild for to long!
And you're going to continue to be mild
@@NCWoodlandRoamer you can never tell
This needs to go, viral or more than viral. I think we’ve all had enough of all this stuff.
Cool conversation. Keep up the communication
The constitution is stating you can possess anything the military has and you can match whatever force needed.
Last time I checked a master key is a sbs... Which the government uses along with machine guns.
The so-called "Great New Deal", sure absolutely WAS NOT. Good job covering this topic...
👍
Constitutional laws don't seem to matter when it comes to a political and power gain agenda.
This needs to go viral and all youtubers need to be talking about it.
The Taliban sure as hell repealed it
US v Rock Island Armory - a district court rules the 1986 Hayes Amendment to the NFA unconstitutional. This is the amendment that outlawed making new transferable machine guns.
So NFA has already been ruled unconstitutional twice. Yet somehow it still exists. A proper Miller application would make it three strikes.
Has anyone else noticed that when any other law gets rules unconstitutional, it is immediately void. But if it is a gun law, well we need to give the government a year, or 5, or 10 to tweak the law. And we will just assume the modified law is constitutional unless it comes back for another case being appealed. Definitely the forgotten (or second or third class) right.
If they can repeal roe v wade, Im sure the NFA can go too!
Especially with the EPA case setting the precedent.
There has been some worthwhile literature printed by Skousen “The 5000 Year Leap” and Barton “Original Intent”. The Framers of the Bill of Rights and our Constitution knew the perils of a federal government that had too much power given to it. (10th amendment) When litigating anything having to do with our “Rights”, we are obligated to consider constitutional law and intent, NOT case law. As we have learned from this outstanding post, there have been judicial decisions that are, at best, suspect. Original intent should weigh heavily in every decision.
No, and I doubt we will ever see any changes to it either, at least none for the better. Until we the people change our attitudes towards our rights and grow a pair, we will continue to have our rights slowly stripped away.
Exactly. It's our choice. We have convinced each other that it is the opinions of politicians that dictate the state of the 2A. Not true. It's up to us. That's a good thing.
Exactly.
Millions of ignorant , apathetic voters won't allow it
I can tell you that being in the military I am issued a Remington 870 with a 10 inch barrel and no stock for breaching and the like. So yeah, I’d say short barrel shotguns are viable for a militia.
BS. You do not have a 10” barrel on a Remington 870. Not physically possible. 13” maybe.
Answer: "God Damn I Sure Hope so!"
think i missed this one, posted on the eve of my bday last year. So much great information. Love you guys for the work you do..
How about:
“Cars need mufflers but pewpews don’t? Even though they’re louder & do hearing damage? & mufflers are “firearms”?!
I don’t see how it holds up at all...
Cars need oil filters too 😉
@@HarrisonCountyStudio
So true! 😆
This was a very good video! Very well put together! And informative
Best damn gun gripe for sure. Good job fellas
They literally said registration isn't completely unconstitutional and you said good job fellas!?!?! What the hell?
You guys need to get your bar cards and go challenge and fight in the courts. Your knowledge and arguments are better than most lawyers I’ve ever heard. You’ve done your research and make a strong case!!!
...and other funny jokes we like to tell ourselves
End the Fed ?
if we get house, senate, and presidency to be progun (which has grown in congress from the last few years) yes its possible
@@vicdiaz5180 so its impossible?
Fpbp
It's possible. Just not likely because it isn't up to a politician. It's our choice. Everything We The People have wanted badly enough......we've gotten it. The problem is compliance with past legislation. End that, and we can move forward.
We never thought that roe would be overturned but it was. This gives us hope that nothing is impossible
We can do a lot of things. It's wheather or not people have the balls to do it.
For the sawed off shotgun - militaries now use shorter breaching shotguns - a double barrel sawed to a shorter length would work in this regard. It is a military arm.
Other SCOTUS rulings have established that a right cannot be converted into a fee or tax. Thus you cannot charge a fee or tax on the exercising of a right.
Repeal of course and this show is becoming my favorite show on RUclips straight up.
The NFA tax stamp puts a tax on a constitutionally protected right...
The Answer is YES it can be based on the Bruin case
Jo Jorgensen said she wanted to repeal the NFA
Imagine voting Trump over Jo Jorgensen and still losing lmfao
@@xCaPz
If gun rights folk actually voted their values instead of voting for trump then we might actually get somewhere
@@Pk-io6xe yup that was my point. Voting Republican is the same as voting democrat, you’re just losing your rights a little slower with republicans
To regulate is to restrict. It is an infringement to even inconvenience a person exercising their rights
Yes sir
If businesses can ban firearms from their premises then can they also legally enforce regulations on speech in their establishment?
Yes
Could you imagine how much it would cost to process forms if they removed the $200 tax
Repeal the courts as well. Make the county run by the people again.
Would love to see the hole NFA get removed but I agree we need to chip away at it the same as they do with our rights. Taking one big bite at it probably will be hard to get over.
No, it needs to be eliminated.
Thank you for doing this episode I have been asking that Question forever. Very valuable information.
Man I wish
I will say this, I don't agree with your conclusions, but this was a well-thought-out video with a lot of great points made
Preaching to the choir guys. It all comes down to a TRULY unbiased supreme court agreeing to hear a case that correctly addresses the issue.
Since the supreme court is a political institution whose members serve for life, once the Democrats pack the court our rights will be forsaken. The tipping point has already been reached.
And once demographics turns texas as blue as California...
currently the republicans own the supreme court but haven't changed anything relating to guns. Lets not pretend the republican's like gun rights either.
@@skinnyllama420 And reagan signed "volkler mcclure", and bush did that import ban.
Gop are controlled opposition.
Republicans have gotten more Gun control passed, then any democrat could dream of.
This is a great episode guys, long time viewer.
No wonder this country is imploding on itself. Poor sheeple
All i hear is from the guy is
ima lil B and dont want to repeal the NFA but i want to talk about repealing the NFA and sound like i care
Thats what I heard also
Idk about the boys and I needing an Abrams, but we sure could use a pair of strikers and a Bradley and might as well pick up a few crates of stingers since we now have apparent air threats. The 2a as written allows us all of that equipment.
To start wouldn’t it be easier to have the ATF change the designation of a “machine gun” to let’s say “an automatic firearm chambered in .50 cal or greater”? If the ATF under the direction of the President can change the definition to include more firearms/accessories then they should be able to exclude firearms. The case could be made that a “machine gun” is a high caliber fully automatic weapon used primarily in military conflicts”. Then flood the civilian market with rifles that are no longer “machine guns”.
I think that would be the quickest way to get the NFA repealed because once millions of people now own an automatic firearm(that is not a machine gun and since their price would drop like a rock) it would be impossible for any future President to attempt to reclassify “machine guns” as it would make millions and millions of Americans felons and be a huge political nightmare for our republican elected representatives. They would have to fight to stop it. Force their hand.
Yes you can and it's very simply done, force the Supreme Court to set Case Precedent using Marbury vs. Madison of 1805.
Section 242 of title 18 should nullify the qualified immunity of police and all government agents ability to be exempt from being punished for Righrs violations,but somehow it doesn't.
These are all arguments that should have been addressed at the inception of the ATF and the NFA. Now you've allowed it to become established and it has festered.
Where as the commerce clause authorizes congress to regulate commerce, it can be argued that it does not stipulate that they can treat one form of commerce differently than another
If you read the next to last paragraph of the Federalist Papers #46, the intention of the 2nd Amendment is clearly explained...it's so that the individual states have some reassurance that if they agreed to be governed by the prospective US government, the people within their state can defend that state against the US government if the need ever arose. That's why "shall not be infringed" should be interpreted as, "the federal government shall make no law governing the ownership or possession of any weapon, period". That may not be a popular interpretation for people that live in nanny states, but that was the true purpose of adding the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. So all Federal laws regulating ownership or possession of weapons are unconstitutional. That would leave it up to the individual states to decide how they want to regulate weapons within their borders, as long as those regulations adhere to said states' own Constitution.
The problem with that now is that after the poorly thought out 14th Amendment was passed, the privileges and immunities clause stipulates that the State governments can't enact any laws that the US Constitution bars the Federal government from enacting, so now neither the Federal or State governments can constitutionally make any laws that regulate the possession or ownership of any weapons. That leaves it all up to local governments to make such laws. I'm not sure why I never hear any gun enthusiasts bring this to light. I typically hear pro gun people just say that they understand the federal government should be allowed to make "reasonable" laws regarding weapons. I definitely don't.
This is what I have been saying and arguing for years about. Because the fed gubbermint chooses not to take our constitution at its word, we have several unconstitutional laws.
I share all the video's that y'all share with all of us because it is all very goid things that y'all bring to the table for all of us to know ......... and i think y'all very much for this ......
The best thing we can do is ignore it out of existence