Hey man, so what happens if they lose at the supreme court? Won't that make it easier for them to try and do a nation wide ban? Makes me nervous having anything go to the supreme court anymore, since the 2nd Amendment is now interpreted however they want 😒
I don't recall the history and tradition of the U.S. to prevent civilians from owning firearms that are and were used in war, specifically the revolutionary war or the civil war. As a matter of fact, my FATHER came back with his Vietnam rifle GIVEN TO HIM BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. So, so desperate of gun controllers... just making up silly crap
In addition, didn't the citizenry of the United States MAIL THEIR FIREARMS during WW2 to Great Britain to arm them for defense against Nazi Germany? Because THEIR GOVERNMENT DISARMED THEM.
Hawaii, California, New York, and Chicago should be at the top of the E-Mailing list, as they All have Judges that are either corrupt, or at inherently STUPID!
Our current government doesn't give a single fk about the constitution😂 who's gonna check them? Not us. Covid was a test of our obedience and we failed
Where were these 29 states when the 1994 AWB went into effect?..I’m guessing these same 29 states will have the most mass school shootings in the future..no?
@@mhxxd4 Why, 1 reason is, they are very afraid us. Proof. They have lookalike actors and armed guards protecting them. Not afraid of a pandemic. Proof: not wearing masks and having large parties during "supposed outbreaks". They know nothing is contagious. In a lab, chemicals are used so samples won't die because they do in the air and on the lab tables.
The AR rifles are NOT military weapons, and even more importantly, weapons that the military uses SHOULD 100% also be accessible to we the people, and protected by the second amendment. This is exactly what our forefathers were talking about!!!
Exactly - that was the Original Intent "Congress have no power to disarm the people, their swords and EVERY other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the Federal or State government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tench Coxe(Congress 1788 - helped write the BOR) . And / Historical Practice From 1792 up until the unconstitutional IMO 1934 NFA citizens did own the same firearms as soldiers, including full auto. . The SCOTUS has ruled that courts MUST consider Original Intent, Historical Practice and, In Common Use.
Incorrect. There is no such thing as a military assault rifle. The second amendment is NOT ABOUT SELF DEFENSE AND NEVER HAS BEEN. The founding fathers themselves state in the federalist papers that it is to be able to GO TO WAR WITH OUR OWN GOVERNMENT IF THEY GET TO BIG FOR THEIR BRITCHES. In fact in DC vs Heller Scolia specifically defined protected weapons as common and useful in a military action.
@@TheBuddyShowWorldwideyou could also have cannons, a ship, and fit it into a war ship, and could get paid by the government to use it. Elon or Bazos legally should be able to have aircraft carrier battleships if they want.
Well, unless you're involved in some of these cases, it's easy to sit on the sideline saying what *SHOULD* be done. The problem is we have the court system to work with, do if you have any bright ideas on how to get cases in front of the SCOTUS, please tell some of the attorney's that have been fighting this for dozens of years. Voter ID ASAP!🗽
After the Spanish-American war in 1898-99, when the "Rough Riders" (officially "First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry") were disbanded and went home, they were allowed to keep their uniforms, boots, saddles & tack, packs AND .30-40 Krag Carbines! Everything except the horse! Along with severance pay and Veteran status. Today's DC CARTEL is a far cry from the government we had at that time.🤬
@@landelik Most of the militia actually had BETTER arms than the World's Mightiest Army, the Brits. The British used the "Brown Bess" musket, a smooth bore long arm of approximately .75 caliber, that was woefully inaccurate beyond 40 or 50 yards, and was only moderately efficient in volley fire. The frontiersmen militia used RIFLED long arms in calibers anywhere from .32 (squirrel guns) to as much as .58 ( bigger game, some in .62), that were accurate out to 200 yards and beyond. The Brit's claimed it was "Ungentlemanly" to shoot their officers at ranges far beyond their capabilities.
How about some decisive federal action against a president that continuously violates Supreme Court actions. What Joe Biden continues to do is because he thinks he is above the law!!!
They don't work for the people. All armed fed agencies are unconstitutional. They are considered standing armies written in the constitution they are not allowed.
trump ignorance killed a million Americans . Some country's who had a honest leader never had on case of covid. maga government want u dead. less voters
I don't understand why we are arguing over our rights - *SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED* - the argument should be: There are already many laws covering every crime in every state, specifically assault, battery, and murder - those are all already illegal... so why are we spending millions every year for the state to attempt to continue chipping away at our most fundamental rights that directly correlate to our God given freedoms? Because the state cares about death? I would argue it doesn't - the people USE the state and its laws to make society function, to serve us - not to use psychologically effective tools to fool more and more of our population, using taxpayer-funded, state propaganda... the state isn't its own animal, the people do not agree to it spending our hard earned money that is supposed to get the homeless vets off the streets and not make hard drugs seem so attractive because life itself would be worth living, not escaping - anyway - our own money cant be used to hunt down and kill our freedoms, that's the proof that this is arbitrary from the start. The right to bare all available firearms is a given right, and it is the most important, it is how this country was founded. The passage of time does not erode these rights just because technology improves - we as the holder of these rights are the subjects. Its like the old tool argument - banning certain types of hammers - that is going to hinder our freedoms to make any type of home we can dream of... if there is a more efficient hammer, the state wants to take it away? The state we pay to help us live a more prosperous and free life? Any argument against 1A or 2A is completely sidestepping the logistics in order to shift the argument away from reality into a territory of semantics and slithery intent that plainly aims to take our rights and freedoms. Gang members all have fully automatic, illegally obtained, & owned guns... they would have suppressors too, if they wanted them. They could get grenade launchers, if they were practical or could be concealed. Anything man made can be purchased or traded - we all know laws only effect the people who are moral and respect life, love, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Hello Counselor, That's Good News....! Thank you for your valuable hardwork and research of the subject. We appreciate the citations and facts of the case presented. We wish you success and the best of everything. More power to the Channel. Long it may wave... GOD Bless the USA. Kind regards here in Corona Del Mar, CA.
@@JefferyDahmlerThat's a good question. I was just talking with someone about how 90% of all mass shooters have been registered Democrats & not one has ever been an NRA member. We figure it's a combination of low IQ & mental illness. What's your thought on why the left does these things?
Hey, didn't NJ just carve out a very very small window with the Colt AR-15 being Constitutional but kept the mag ban inplace! And could that also help in this instance!??
Is the 2ndA written for only self defense? Only sport shooting? Only lawful purposes? Or all 3??? No. The 2ndA only includes those three (ancillary rights). The 2ndA was written for the militia i.e the people, an organized people, to secure a free state. Additionally to that, it is to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions when called by congress. How do you secure a free state??? Or, execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions without military arms??? You can't... Which means what? We are left with a standing army that is NOT the militia i.e. the people...
Supremacy clause Establishes that the constitution of the united states of America is supreme law of the land it overrides and overrules all other laws. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 Text. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. 2nd amendment Text. THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. 9th amendment enumeration clause makes it illegal Unconstitutional to use the commerce clause to tax and violate the second amendment rights of American citizens. 10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause, the second amendment prohibits the states through the shall not be Infringed clause, therefore the 10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause applies. 14th amendment section 1 Text. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES The second amendment is the privilege and immunity (RIGHT) of every single individual american citizen. Therefore no state can legally pass or enforce any form of gun laws whatsoever anywhere in the united states of America. All gun laws in the united states of America are unconstitutional therefore they are all illegal and void, not legally binding enforceable laws whatsoever.
@@smas3256 what do you think a right is,it is the absolute privilege and immunity to do something,say something,own/possess something,go somewhere, live how you choose.
I would love some explanation on the 2nd amendment portion on why the 4th circuit only mention self defense. Isn't there alot more to the second amendment that should be argued on to why we shouldn't be limited on what arms we use, purchase, or own.
Where the hell does this "military use" test come from. When the second amendment was written, it protected the musket. That was the military weapon of the time AND protected by the second amendment. That should 100% hold true today. The idea was that we were as well armed as the military to be able to fight the military. That "military use" argument should not even be considered.
how could anything that infringes on the right of the people to keep or bear arms not be unconstitutional? it says it right there literally in the constitution.
Question Sir, what do you think the penalty should be for deciding against the written rights of the citizens? The 2A is our guaratee and instructions for the gov.
At the time of the signing of the Constitution, ALL firearms were military weapons. Hence, their argument is null and void. There is also Marbury v Madison.
A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907...our great-grandparents were first able to buy the rifle pictured. The semi-auto Winchester Model 1907. This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine. About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles. The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons.. The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock. The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isnt new in any way. The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them. The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed. Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Treat mental illness. Stop drugging our children. Cause the rifle technology in question was here long before this insanity.
Thank you for your great show Anthony, what I don’t understand is that if the militia which was named in the second amendment had volunteers who, with their own weapons, including mainly rifles, were within the law and the second amendment, why would this change, if that was the law of the land in 1791, it is the same law today, why does this keep coming up in an AR 15 was the civilian version of the M-16 and it was made to be available for anyone
I was at the range last week and the County Sheriff's department was doing their handgun qualifications! Omgosh, most of them had to shoot the qualifications course 2+ times to pass! I consider myself an average shooter and I had a several of them watching me shot and checking my targets! I live in rural West Texas and trust me you are your own first responder! Some of these deputies were so overweight and in such poor health they couldn't chase a criminal nor hit them uf they had to! Very disturbing!! Never give up anymore rights! We must all be non compliant with anymore unconstitutional infringements!
US vs MILLER. In that US Supreme Court case the court ruled that sawed off shotguns could be banned because they had no use as a MILITARY WEAPON. Thus clearly holding that MILITARY TYPE FIREARMS, have the GREATEST PROTECTION under the Second Amendment.
Second amendment does not say that the people have a right to self-defense. It says that the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t specify what kind of arms. Military style rifles, including fully automatic weapons are completely covered by the second amendment. The government at all levels does not have. The authority is completely barred from infringing on the right of people to keep them their arms. Adult should be considered innocent incompetent until after their proof guilty or incompetent and until occurs… Hint: “due process” their rights cannot be infringed. I don’t understand why the Supreme Court just doesn’t support the Constitution in the second amendment and put a stop to this crap.
@@ejharris7607 No, I didn't. What I'm saying is that AR-15s are a family of weapon systems. The name is like an umbrella that those two rifles sit under. In fact, earlier M16s going as late as even the early 80s If I'm not mistaken had AR-15 inscribed on the side of the weapon alongside the name M16. The very earliest M16s were even just inscribed with the AR-15 name alone. So going back to what I said first, while not every AR-15 is an M16 or M4, every M16 and M4 is an AR-15. Were those guns humans, their last name would be AR-15.
@majorborngusfluunduch8694 Colt and Armalite are 2 different manufacturers. Armalite never made rifles for military applications. They were a spinoff of M-16 for civilian use without selective fire. Colt has never used the name AR-15 on their rifles, or vice versa.
Hunting rifles are not good enough to stop a tyrannical government which is what the 2nd amendment was created for. So ARs Aks and SKSs are more important in stopping a tyrannical government so they should not be banned.
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Forcing a burden of proof upon the citizen to show "need," for a certain level (whatever that may be) of self-defense is beyond egregious; what could that POSSIBLY translate to with regard to all of the other rights enumerated in the BOR? Is it within the purview of the .gov to tell me what I may consider free speech, BEFORE I utter a single word? The Tree of Liberty needs refreshing, Ladies and Gentlemen.
WASHINGTON STATE SUCKS! We have been suffering under the hi cap mag ban and the AW ban ya can't even sell the ones you have to others in the same state. If you think some of these other states are bad check out ours.
People will do what people will do, I know plenty of people in WA that give no fucks about some unconstitutional ban. Insley and the dems are a blight on the citizens of WA state.
A standard AR-15 has never been used by the military. The M16 which yes is an AR platform rifle has been used as well as the M4A1. The difference between those two and a standard AR-15 is the select fire going to burst and/or fully automatic. Meaning it has an auto sear which is not legally bought by your common citizen. A standard AR-15 is only semi-automatic and is widely used and bought by civilians allowing it to fall under the protection of “common use”. If we were talking strictly about the M16 variants or M4 then maybe they would have an argument.
This is confusing to me. Where does the United States against Miller decision come into this? The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument. What firearm bears a better more reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, than the AR rifle platform? Miller couldn't have a sawed off shotgun because it was seen as not having enough military value. Now the Fourth Circuit is saying the AR has too much military value. Or am I not understanding this correctly?
You have always been able to travel through it, as long as you stayed on the federal highway system, didn't exit to get fuel, food, etc. Ask your own attorney.
You have always been able to travel through it, as long as you stayed on the federal highway system, didn't exit to get fuel, food, etc. Ask your own attorney.
This didn't exist in the other World Wars, they allowed 1903 rifles, 30-06 which is a standard round in the civilian world and I took my first deer with at the age of 13. 20 years USN. Love types of different pieces, 7-08, is my favorite cartridge, along side the 06. Old now but still very capable round. Steven
We are faced with an impossible situation: a court system designed to determine what is legal under the Constitution, yet a court system that once that has been accomplished, illegally defies the determination if they don't like it. This is the equivalent of the unelected bureaucracy in Washington determining what does and does not stand as the rule, thereby making a mockery of democracy. The people are sovereign. When those who work for the people substitute THEIR wishes for those of the PEOPLE, whose wishes pre-empt all others, you have anarchy. You have a non-representative government. You have a government that must be dissolved if it cannot be purged of those in it that do not follow ORDERS - which are just what democratically-decided choices are. Instead, they squirm and weasel their way around the orders - or blatantly defy them. If your only job is to take the law and uphold it, and instead you defy it, you do not belong in that job. Accordingly, those in the justice system who follow a minority or influential or bribed agenda instead of that decided by law, should be themselves charged with breaking the law. Why do we not charge judges for clearly violating the legal decisions made by others who are their superiors? They keep coming back, again and again, seeking to undermine the decisions that have been handed down to them to carry out. In the military, there's court martial; in my company, I FIRED such people. What makes judges immune to consequences for clearly ignoring the law like a common criminal? It's time that "hanging judge" took on a new meaning. No more legislation from the bench!
Is it not a warcrime to use military weapons against civilians? If so, then all leo agencies need to be tried for warcrimes, or admit the military doesn't use ARs, and they arent military weapons
If police officers are not required to protect the public and they are agents of the state, the state itself is not entitled to make laws in the name of safety. It also means that the public is not required to act in the name of officer safety, making Penn v Mimms null and void.
When will this be fully aligned in 50 states? It is the United States: with one Bill of Rights and Constitution. Why are there 50,000 laws to confuse the simplest texts. States next to each other have drastically different gun laws? Think about that a while and ask , “ Why?” Seems ludicrous to me.
The "BROWN BESS" was the most commonly used rifle during the American Revolutionary War. This was a musket rifle but also a weapon of war. With the reasoning here this should also be Banned.
Please keep the information and conversation going forward. Sad thing is they will just reword their reasoning to why they are infringing on our rights again and then the whole process starts again and this plays out over and over again with no consequences for them doing this.
Thank you for keeping us updated on this very important topic. But I'm sure you know that as soon as the Supreme Court overturns this, the left coasts will do their utpost to put the kibosh on it. And we will have to start it all over.
If banning rifles could be done, it would be done already! Constitutionally, it can't be done without a majority vote in Congress. This is why it is so important to vote people! Democrats want to rule you and they will do anything to win POTUS, Senate, and House majority, and when or if they do, you can be assured that guns will be banned!
Support the channel by checking out our sponsor Brownells and by subscribing to the channel!
Hey man, so what happens if they lose at the supreme court? Won't that make it easier for them to try and do a nation wide ban? Makes me nervous having anything go to the supreme court anymore, since the 2nd Amendment is now interpreted however they want 😒
I don't recall the history and tradition of the U.S. to prevent civilians from owning firearms that are and were used in war, specifically the revolutionary war or the civil war. As a matter of fact, my FATHER came back with his Vietnam rifle GIVEN TO HIM BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. So, so desperate of gun controllers... just making up silly crap
In addition, didn't the citizenry of the United States MAIL THEIR FIREARMS during WW2 to Great Britain to arm them for defense against Nazi Germany? Because THEIR GOVERNMENT DISARMED THEM.
Question: If the AR is a "military rifle," doesn't that make police war criminals for deliberately targeting civilians with military weaponry?
So 29 states did read the 2nd Amendment..Nice..they need to email it to the other 21 states.
Hawaii, California, New York, and Chicago should be at the top of the E-Mailing list, as they All have Judges that are either corrupt, or at inherently STUPID!
Our current government doesn't give a single fk about the constitution😂 who's gonna check them? Not us. Covid was a test of our obedience and we failed
@@mhxxd4 Failed miserably
Where were these 29 states when the 1994 AWB went into effect?..I’m guessing these same 29 states will have the most mass school shootings in the future..no?
It sounds like they are fighting for the band
Not Constitutional!! There is only one reason they would want to take away guns.
Population Reduction...
Communism
Armas para que? Weapons, what for?
Fidel Castro 1959
THEY DONT CARE!
@@mhxxd4 Why, 1 reason is, they are very afraid us. Proof. They have lookalike actors and armed guards protecting them. Not afraid of a pandemic. Proof: not wearing masks and having large parties during "supposed outbreaks". They know nothing is contagious. In a lab, chemicals are used so samples won't die because they do in the air and on the lab tables.
He is right, they don’t care. They are lawless.
The AR rifles are NOT military weapons, and even more importantly, weapons that the military uses SHOULD 100% also be accessible to we the people, and protected by the second amendment. This is exactly what our forefathers were talking about!!!
BRAVO!!!!
Exactly - that was the Original Intent
"Congress have no power to disarm the people, their swords and EVERY other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the Federal or State government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tench Coxe(Congress 1788 - helped write the BOR)
.
And / Historical Practice
From 1792 up until the unconstitutional IMO 1934 NFA citizens did own the same firearms as soldiers, including full auto.
.
The SCOTUS has ruled that courts MUST consider Original Intent, Historical Practice and, In Common Use.
Even if they are! We can have them!
I don't rember using a AR15 during Desert Storm or when I was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. 🤔🇺🇸🇺🇸
liar
Every gun grabbing politician has armed protection at our expense.
Many with fully Automatic Weapons.
In it's day, the flintlock was a military assault rifle
In those days people actually knew what assault meant.
As were matchlocks and long bows.
Incorrect. There is no such thing as a military assault rifle.
The second amendment is NOT ABOUT SELF DEFENSE AND NEVER HAS BEEN. The founding fathers themselves state in the federalist papers that it is to be able to GO TO WAR WITH OUR OWN GOVERNMENT IF THEY GET TO BIG FOR THEIR BRITCHES. In fact in DC vs Heller Scolia specifically defined protected weapons as common and useful in a military action.
Exactly, this BS between “Military use” and “self defense” needs to be addressed …2A is absolute 🇺🇸
@@TheBuddyShowWorldwideyou could also have cannons, a ship, and fit it into a war ship, and could get paid by the government to use it. Elon or Bazos legally should be able to have aircraft carrier battleships if they want.
The supreme court must overturn all these rifle magazine bans they are unconstitutional
Overturn ALL "assault" weapon bans.
@@zerrodefexRepeal the NFA.
Well, unless you're involved in some of these cases, it's easy to sit on the sideline saying what *SHOULD* be done. The problem is we have the court system to work with, do if you have any bright ideas on how to get cases in front of the SCOTUS, please tell some of the attorney's that have been fighting this for dozens of years. Voter ID ASAP!🗽
@constitutionalist4391 I give to goa,nra ,citizens for the right to keep and bear arms all filing law suits to fight these unconstitutional gun laws
@@zerrodefex All armed agencies are a threat to americans
Until about 1910 the average citizen usually had better rifles than the military.
After the Spanish-American war in 1898-99, when the "Rough Riders" (officially "First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry") were disbanded and went home, they were allowed to keep their uniforms, boots, saddles & tack, packs AND .30-40 Krag Carbines! Everything except the horse! Along with severance pay and Veteran status.
Today's DC CARTEL is a far cry from the government we had at that time.🤬
And still do.
Umm military weapons?? The militia had military weapons
and that is why there is a United States of America
@@landelik...and in many cases the weapons possessed by the "people" were superior to those used by the British soldiers!
@@landelik
Most of the militia actually had BETTER arms than the World's Mightiest Army, the Brits.
The British used the "Brown Bess" musket, a smooth bore long arm of approximately .75 caliber, that was woefully inaccurate beyond 40 or 50 yards, and was only moderately efficient in volley fire.
The frontiersmen militia used RIFLED long arms in calibers anywhere from .32 (squirrel guns) to as much as .58 ( bigger game, some in .62), that were accurate out to 200 yards and beyond.
The Brit's claimed it was "Ungentlemanly" to shoot their officers at ranges far beyond their capabilities.
HAS
Good Evening from Corrupt Illinois and thanks for the update.
Calling Illinois corrupt is not even being close to what it is.
There are other people in Illinois other than me?!
is that by moscow
@@storms_thereaperChicago checking in, cannot believe 10/22 model on the list. First rifle for many kids, this is enough.
How about some decisive fed action against states who violate the supreme court’s?
How about some decisive federal action against a president that continuously violates Supreme Court actions. What Joe Biden continues to do is because he thinks he is above the law!!!
The feds are in on there agenda to take guns
They want to change the courts cuz thats all they dont have.
They don't work for the people. All armed fed agencies are unconstitutional. They are considered standing armies written in the constitution they are not allowed.
Not going to happen under the Socialist Democrats.
Seems the government has a problem with the people's right to defend themselves.
trump ignorance killed a million Americans . Some country's who had a honest leader never had on case of covid. maga government want u dead. less voters
No, the government has a "We don't want you to be able to fight our tyranny" problem.
@@marktwain2053 are u fighting for air living under those orange balls
@@marktwain2053 gop need guns to get kids in kennels.
@@JefferyDahmler Troll with stage 4 TDS
it's time for the Supreme Court to CLEARLY put this matter and infringement to rest once and for all...
They know their ban is unconstitutional.
I don't understand why we are arguing over our rights - *SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED* - the argument should be: There are already many laws covering every crime in every state, specifically assault, battery, and murder - those are all already illegal... so why are we spending millions every year for the state to attempt to continue chipping away at our most fundamental rights that directly correlate to our God given freedoms? Because the state cares about death? I would argue it doesn't - the people USE the state and its laws to make society function, to serve us - not to use psychologically effective tools to fool more and more of our population, using taxpayer-funded, state propaganda... the state isn't its own animal, the people do not agree to it spending our hard earned money that is supposed to get the homeless vets off the streets and not make hard drugs seem so attractive because life itself would be worth living, not escaping - anyway - our own money cant be used to hunt down and kill our freedoms, that's the proof that this is arbitrary from the start.
The right to bare all available firearms is a given right, and it is the most important, it is how this country was founded. The passage of time does not erode these rights just because technology improves - we as the holder of these rights are the subjects. Its like the old tool argument - banning certain types of hammers - that is going to hinder our freedoms to make any type of home we can dream of... if there is a more efficient hammer, the state wants to take it away? The state we pay to help us live a more prosperous and free life? Any argument against 1A or 2A is completely sidestepping the logistics in order to shift the argument away from reality into a territory of semantics and slithery intent that plainly aims to take our rights and freedoms.
Gang members all have fully automatic, illegally obtained, & owned guns... they would have suppressors too, if they wanted them. They could get grenade launchers, if they were practical or could be concealed. Anything man made can be purchased or traded - we all know laws only effect the people who are moral and respect life, love, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
SC is trying to declare unconstitutional laws.
W H E O on guns.
Repeal ALL NFA INFRINGEMENTS (both 1934 & 1968!), DISBAND the ATF, _punish the CRIMINALS,_ Not everyone else!!!
I'm not even on the Supreme Court and I can tell you it's unconstitutional to ban rifles.
For self defense, we should be able to defend ourselves with comparable weapons that our 'enemies ' / intruders carry. Imo
Hello Counselor,
That's Good News....!
Thank you for your valuable hardwork and research of the subject.
We appreciate the citations and facts of the case presented.
We wish you success and the best of everything.
More power to the Channel.
Long it may wave...
GOD Bless the USA.
Kind regards here in Corona Del Mar, CA.
Thanks for stopping by like always rett!
It’s time to put these rifle bands to rest!! It’s such bull💩!!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
why do u kill children
*bans.
@@JefferyDahmler
No one wants psychopaths like YOU armed. 🙄😒
@@JefferyDahmlerThat's a good question. I was just talking with someone about how 90% of all mass shooters have been registered Democrats & not one has ever been an NRA member. We figure it's a combination of low IQ & mental illness. What's your thought on why the left does these things?
WE WILL NOT COMPLY.
Hey, didn't NJ just carve out a very very small window with the Colt AR-15 being Constitutional but kept the mag ban inplace! And could that also help in this instance!??
Is the 2ndA written for only self defense? Only sport shooting? Only lawful purposes? Or all 3???
No. The 2ndA only includes those three (ancillary rights).
The 2ndA was written for the militia i.e the people, an organized people, to secure a free state. Additionally to that, it is to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions when called by congress. How do you secure a free state??? Or, execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions without military arms???
You can't... Which means what? We are left with a standing army that is NOT the militia i.e. the people...
A stapler is a military weapon if a soldier has one on him.
You are awesome at bringing the latest news concerning such essential American rights. Thank you for your dedication
Supremacy clause
Establishes that the constitution of the united states of America is supreme law of the land it overrides and overrules all other laws.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 Text.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
2nd amendment Text.
THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
9th amendment enumeration clause makes it illegal Unconstitutional to use the commerce clause to tax and violate the second amendment rights of American citizens.
10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause, the second amendment prohibits the states through the shall not be Infringed clause, therefore the 10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause applies.
14th amendment section 1 Text.
NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
The second amendment is the privilege and immunity (RIGHT) of every single individual american citizen. Therefore no state can legally pass or enforce any form of gun laws whatsoever anywhere in the united states of America.
All gun laws in the united states of America are unconstitutional therefore they are all illegal and void, not legally binding enforceable laws whatsoever.
That looks pretty bullet proof.... lol I don't understand how they don't get that.
@dragonf1092. Please don't call the second amendment a privilege.
@@smas3256 what do you think a right is,it is the absolute privilege and immunity to do something,say something,own/possess something,go somewhere, live how you choose.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would love some explanation on the 2nd amendment portion on why the 4th circuit only mention self defense. Isn't there alot more to the second amendment that should be argued on to why we shouldn't be limited on what arms we use, purchase, or own.
second amendment was put in place for self defense and the ability to fight back against tyranny if needed
Where the hell does this "military use" test come from. When the second amendment was written, it protected the musket. That was the military weapon of the time AND protected by the second amendment. That should 100% hold true today. The idea was that we were as well armed as the military to be able to fight the military. That "military use" argument should not even be considered.
No weapon is an "Assault Weapon." A person is the assailant. All weapons are defense weapons. The US military never used that term.
2A all the way!
Thank you for the update. Hopefully this ban gets overturned so Illinois can listen
Please! Illinois sucks! Every time I feel like getting a new gun I just get mad because anything cool is “illegal” 😡
how could anything that infringes on the right of the people to keep or bear arms not be unconstitutional? it says it right there literally in the constitution.
Question Sir, what do you think the penalty should be for deciding against the written rights of the citizens? The 2A is our guaratee and instructions for the gov.
now that ATF lost cheveron they have to try and push a 2A law through a 2A sympathetic supreme court.
🤔 when the constitution was written didn’t everybody have the same weapons as everybody else (gov)?
Some private citizens also owned Cannons.
@@mikewohlstein1162 if you had the means and the funds you were able to own warships too
At the time of the signing of the Constitution, ALL firearms were military weapons. Hence, their argument is null and void. There is also Marbury v Madison.
4:00 starts the main issue. 5:00 Outlines the TRUE Issue of Tyranny
A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907...our great-grandparents were first able to buy the rifle pictured. The semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.
This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.
About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.
The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..
The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.
The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isnt new in any way.
The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.
The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.
Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Treat mental illness. Stop drugging our children.
Cause the rifle technology in question was here long before this insanity.
Thank you for your great show Anthony, what I don’t understand is that if the militia which was named in the second amendment had volunteers who, with their own weapons, including mainly rifles, were within the law and the second amendment, why would this change, if that was the law of the land in 1791, it is the same law today, why does this keep coming up in an AR 15 was the civilian version of the M-16 and it was made to be available for anyone
I was at the range last week and the County Sheriff's department was doing their handgun qualifications! Omgosh, most of them had to shoot the qualifications course 2+ times to pass! I consider myself an average shooter and I had a several of them watching me shot and checking my targets! I live in rural West Texas and trust me you are your own first responder! Some of these deputies were so overweight and in such poor health they couldn't chase a criminal nor hit them uf they had to! Very disturbing!! Never give up anymore rights! We must all be non compliant with anymore unconstitutional infringements!
The government doesn't decide what I need for SELF defense
Thanks for your dedication to this topic!
Where in the constitution and the 2nd does it say that they can ban weapons.
Thanks Anthony
Let’s go, Washington state has this ban and I want this overturned so that I can properly defend myself
AR’s if you’re using 5.56/.223 rounds then they rank among the smallest of the center fire calibers
Are not effective against body armor. Not military grade any more.
Heck yeah!
They keep pushing overturn the 1986 machine gun law in response. Lol
US vs MILLER. In that US Supreme Court case the court ruled that sawed off shotguns could be banned because they had no use as a MILITARY WEAPON. Thus clearly holding that MILITARY TYPE FIREARMS, have the GREATEST PROTECTION under the Second Amendment.
I'm confused, is this in favor of the ban or not?
I'm not well versed in the legal jargon and have no clueif this is good for our freedoms or not.
I wonder if the SCOTUS decision if overturning the ban means other states like New York bans will be unconstitutional as well.
Let the LIKES 👍 go up!!
🇺🇸👍
🙌🙌
Second amendment does not say that the people have a right to self-defense. It says that the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t specify what kind of arms. Military style rifles, including fully automatic weapons are completely covered by the second amendment. The government at all levels does not have. The authority is completely barred from infringing on the right of people to keep them their arms. Adult should be considered innocent incompetent until after their proof guilty or incompetent and until occurs… Hint: “due process” their rights cannot be infringed. I don’t understand why the Supreme Court just doesn’t support the Constitution in the second amendment and put a stop to this crap.
The military does NOT use AR-15s
Well, they do technically. All M16s and M4s are AR-15s. Not all AR-15s are M16s and M4s.
@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 You just contradicted yourself by calling them what they are "M-16's and M-4's"
@@ejharris7607 No, I didn't. What I'm saying is that AR-15s are a family of weapon systems. The name is like an umbrella that those two rifles sit under. In fact, earlier M16s going as late as even the early 80s If I'm not mistaken had AR-15 inscribed on the side of the weapon alongside the name M16. The very earliest M16s were even just inscribed with the AR-15 name alone. So going back to what I said first, while not every AR-15 is an M16 or M4, every M16 and M4 is an AR-15. Were those guns humans, their last name would be AR-15.
@majorborngusfluunduch8694 Colt and Armalite are 2 different manufacturers. Armalite never made rifles for military applications. They were a spinoff of M-16 for civilian use without selective fire. Colt has never used the name AR-15 on their rifles, or vice versa.
@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 AR-15 is "Armalite-15"
Great information. Thank you for updating us.
Thank you.
fantastic overview and representation of the facts at hand.
Hunting rifles are not good enough to stop a tyrannical government which is what the 2nd amendment was created for. So ARs Aks and SKSs are more important in stopping a tyrannical government so they should not be banned.
Thank you!!
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Forcing a burden of proof upon the citizen to show "need," for a certain level (whatever that may be) of self-defense is beyond egregious; what could that POSSIBLY translate to with regard to all of the other rights enumerated in the BOR? Is it within the purview of the .gov to tell me what I may consider free speech, BEFORE I utter a single word?
The Tree of Liberty needs refreshing, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Thank you for the updates
Great Report. Thank You. AS
WASHINGTON STATE SUCKS! We have been suffering under the hi cap mag ban and the AW ban ya can't even sell the ones you have to others in the same state. If you think some of these other states are bad check out ours.
People will do what people will do, I know plenty of people in WA that give no fucks about some unconstitutional ban. Insley and the dems are a blight on the citizens of WA state.
every single person who says that Maryland's ban is in agreement with the second amendment is a lair.
Well done sir❤
Thank you
Unconstitutional is still Unconstitutional.
Great information thank you
Thanks
Can’t wait for SCOTUS to duck this to like the cowards they are.
More than likely true.
A standard AR-15 has never been used by the military. The M16 which yes is an AR platform rifle has been used as well as the M4A1. The difference between those two and a standard AR-15 is the select fire going to burst and/or fully automatic. Meaning it has an auto sear which is not legally bought by your common citizen. A standard AR-15 is only semi-automatic and is widely used and bought by civilians allowing it to fall under the protection of “common use”. If we were talking strictly about the M16 variants or M4 then maybe they would have an argument.
Great that you got Brownell's as a sponsor. They are one of my favorite places to shop on line.
Keep this up!
Support
Thanks again
Thanks for watching!
This is confusing to me. Where does the United States against Miller decision come into this? The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument. What firearm bears a better more reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, than the AR rifle platform? Miller couldn't have a sawed off shotgun because it was seen as not having enough military value. Now the Fourth Circuit is saying the AR has too much military value. Or am I not understanding this correctly?
Maryland hates guns, I’m glad now that I can travel through Maryland if I don’t stop, concealed.
You have always been able to travel through it, as long as you stayed on the federal highway system, didn't exit to get fuel, food, etc. Ask your own attorney.
You have always been able to travel through it, as long as you stayed on the federal highway system, didn't exit to get fuel, food, etc. Ask your own attorney.
What they don't know, won't hurt!🤫
@@debbiestimac5175 you have never been able too. Not until 2021.
Maryland Code, Criminal Law § 4-203
Current as of December 31, 2021
Thanks for the video
Great updates.
This didn't exist in the other World Wars, they allowed 1903 rifles, 30-06 which is a standard round in the civilian world and I took my first deer with at the age of 13. 20 years USN. Love types of different pieces, 7-08, is my favorite cartridge, along side the 06. Old now but still very capable round. Steven
Great update
Keep up the great fight
We are faced with an impossible situation: a court system designed to determine what is legal under the Constitution, yet a court system that once that has been accomplished, illegally defies the determination if they don't like it.
This is the equivalent of the unelected bureaucracy in Washington determining what does and does not stand as the rule, thereby making a mockery of democracy. The people are sovereign. When those who work for the people substitute THEIR wishes for those of the PEOPLE, whose wishes pre-empt all others, you have anarchy. You have a non-representative government. You have a government that must be dissolved if it cannot be purged of those in it that do not follow ORDERS - which are just what democratically-decided choices are.
Instead, they squirm and weasel their way around the orders - or blatantly defy them. If your only job is to take the law and uphold it, and instead you defy it, you do not belong in that job. Accordingly, those in the justice system who follow a minority or influential or bribed agenda instead of that decided by law, should be themselves charged with breaking the law.
Why do we not charge judges for clearly violating the legal decisions made by others who are their superiors? They keep coming back, again and again, seeking to undermine the decisions that have been handed down to them to carry out. In the military, there's court martial; in my company, I FIRED such people. What makes judges immune to consequences for clearly ignoring the law like a common criminal? It's time that "hanging judge" took on a new meaning. No more legislation from the bench!
Thanks for the update.
I HATE Maryland
@conanzbarbarian this is the correct attitude 👏
The COMMUNIST STATE OF MARYLAND!!!!!
Yeah, FUCK Maryland!
Is it not a warcrime to use military weapons against civilians? If so, then all leo agencies need to be tried for warcrimes, or admit the military doesn't use ARs, and they arent military weapons
If police officers are not required to protect the public and they are agents of the state, the state itself is not entitled to make laws in the name of safety. It also means that the public is not required to act in the name of officer safety, making Penn v Mimms null and void.
When will this be fully aligned in 50 states? It is the United States: with one Bill of Rights and Constitution. Why are there 50,000 laws to confuse the simplest texts. States next to each other have drastically different gun laws? Think about that a while and ask , “ Why?”
Seems ludicrous to me.
unfortunately, most likely never
2nd amendment, yes!
The "BROWN BESS" was the most commonly used rifle during the American Revolutionary War. This was a musket rifle but also a weapon of war. With the reasoning here this should also be Banned.
The 4th circuit is not engaging something that is incorrect, they are NOT following the Constitution! The 4th circuit needs to be removed!
Please keep the information and conversation going forward. Sad thing is they will just reword their reasoning to why they are infringing on our rights again and then the whole process starts again and this plays out over and over again with no consequences for them doing this.
That Brownells code is practically useless, btw.
It's doesn't say specifically what it's for it just says it is not available for this product.
Thank you for keeping us updated on this very important topic.
But I'm sure you know that as soon as the Supreme Court overturns this, the left coasts will do their utpost to put the kibosh on it. And we will have to start it all over.
Delaware just started their Rifle ban in June 2022. I wouldn't be surprised if they put more money into stopping this review. Thanks Anthony.
Defense against a tyrannical government IS self-defense. Therefore, ALL arms should be valid for possession and use by citizens.
If banning rifles could be done, it would be done already! Constitutionally, it can't be done without a majority vote in Congress. This is why it is so important to vote people! Democrats want to rule you and they will do anything to win POTUS, Senate, and House majority, and when or if they do, you can be assured that guns will be banned!