The Constitution must apply equally to all persons, citizen or not, in America. Otherwise, none of it will apply- there are no second class rights. That he's not a citizen, that he's not here legally, doesn't remove his protections under the rest of the Constitution. The cops can't just beat him until he signs a confession to every unsolved murder they want to clear, then without a jury or council, have a judge declare guilt and sentence. If snuck over, misdemenor; over stayed a visa, civil matter. Neither of those make the Second a second class right. And once you think it does, you're saying you "support the Constitution but". Which makes you a traitor.
Incredibly based and well articulated. Edit: apparently I need to remind you folks that illegal aliens still enjoy the protections of the 1A, 4A, and 5A until they have a trial. You can't just search any person's car and claim you think they're an illegal. Their 4A rights don't just evaporate the second you claim they're illegal. So until they are proven illegal in court, their rights remain intact.
Excellent point. I believe they're treated as if they had all the other rights, such as the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th. So the 2nd should apply as well. All persons in this nation have these rights, citizen or not, and the constitution should be applied to the world. We would live in a much better place if every nation recognized the rights listed in the constitution. Also, happy Thanksgiving
@@James-cr5mc Also, it's been decided many times before that at least resident aliens _do_ have gun rights, even though they never swore allegiance to the US. Is this decision a reversal of that? Also, many Americans never swore that oath - you can be born in the US and never have recited the pledge of allegiance before turning 18 or even 21, after all, and this does not preclude you from gun ownership.
The taxpayers are always the ones who pay for LE misconduct, whether they're federal or local. I can count the number of officers who've had to pay out themselves on one hand. When they know they'll lose, the government just settles it at no cost to the LE officer.
And who pays for the insurance? Insurance isn't some magical thing that produces money out of nowhere like the federal reserve. In order for the insurance provider to be profitable their customers as a whole have to pay them more than they pay out. Which means tax payers everywhere pay more. But, if I heard correctly, this settlement was actually against the individual officers, not the city or the department, so presumably the officers would be individually liable to pay it. Something that essentially never happens when normal citizens sue law enforcement, which might be the most infuriating part of this whole story.
I didn't see any violations of the agent's rights. He refused to get on the ground. If that had happened to any ordinary person, the case would've been the opposite, and everyone knows it.
@@Lot_Lizard2024🎶 🎵 its like raiiiiiiiin on your wedding day, its a free ride when you've already paid, its the good advice that you just can't take 🎶 🎵
ATF Agent James Burk was previously charged with stealing wine from a Kroger back in 2015. You know, the A in ATF. And he still has a job with the ATF.
That atf agent was also previously arrested for swapping price tags off of cheap bottles of wine onto expensive bottles of wine so he could pay less at self checkout. They only caught him because the store workers suspected he had done that many times before. Real stand up guy he is.
But even if you went in their shop (maybe without buying anything) they should be liable for your complete protection from all illegal harm since they posted a sign that you yourself aren't supposed or able to do so yourself.
Unless they're running people through a manometer, I ignore the sign. If for some weird reason they find out I am armed, All they can do is tell me to leave.
@mountainman8602 or they can call the cops and make a false claim saying there's a crazy armed guy in our shop and they're scared, and then the jump out boys descend on you thinking you're a serious threat. That's why you should just stay out of "gun free" safe spaces. It's not worth the risk.
If the "ATF agent" had just complied and followed the cop's orders, everything would have been fine. That's what they always tell us anyway. But for them, their ego is such that they can't submit to anyone else's authority, so instead he refuses to do what he's told and instead argues with the officer. When the peasants do that, we have little to no recourse. But when the enforcers do it to other enforcers, they get $1.2M?!
That's the kicker... If you aren't supposed to be in the country at all, nobody know who you are, and how do you legally purchase a firearm commercially? On the 4473 form there is a question about immigration status.......
@brandonrupp5880 That is true. However, since this guy is here illegally, he is already a felon. He can have a successful business, but legally, he can't own firearms in the US because he's a felon. It should be investigated where these 170 firearms came from. If someone is straw purchasing for him, they need to be indicted. I do understand why aliens want to come here, but they must go through the right channels. If they are entering illegally, they should be fingerprinted and retinal scanned, then deported for their first offense. If they are caught again, then they get to stay for a year in one of our luxurious prisons, then deported. Third offense, two years, deported. Fourth offense, 4 years, deported. Also, since they have entered illegally, they can never become a US citizen. No one, that is not a US citizen, is allowed to vote on any issue in America. This BS of allowing illegals to vote in local and state elections, will become a court case to make it legal for them to vote in a national election. Illegals should not count in the census either. That increases the representation of Demorat controlled areas.
@@brandonrupp5880 Liberty Doll's video on this says that they were not private sales and that he had filled out background check paperwork. She goes into a lot more depth on it.
2A rights were written for Americans to be able to protect themselves against foreign invasion, not to protect the invaders right to be armed after they invaded!
As a legal alien I support this message. Even if entering illegally is just a misdemeanor, summing up working without a permit, paying no taxes, how do you get a driving license without documents, a home to pay rent, start a business...
What I have learned from the media and "others", is to always howl "I can't breath" when arrested. This is the key to a multi-million dollar retirement.
Exactly which rights does one forfeit upon illegal entry? Do you really believe they lose all rights? Could they be enslaved? Subjected to medical experiments? Forced to change religions? Tortured? Did you think for one second before you posted that nonsense?
@@LeoBaker-ir3vo yes, yes, yes, and yes. Somebody illegally enters your home, eats your food, takes your money, and dumps in your toilet then decides he's going to hang out for the rest of his life on your dime at your place and you can't do anything about it because he has rIgHts... *derp*
@@strykerentllcso in your mind, if someone breaks into you house, YOU can hold them against their will for years and make them your slave and it will be OK because they no longer have any rights, not even God given/natural rights? If rights can be taken away, then they are created by the government and can be taken away from the government. That includes your rights.
@@franklugo6928 Gee, why are there prisons, walnut? LOL In your walnut, nobody can be held against their will while digging ditches on a chain gang because laws and punishment for breaking said laws encroach on human rights... *derp* Take that sovereign citizen nonsense out of here.
He is undeniably a criminal invader. This guy was denied legal entry then he illegally crossed the next night; by his own admission. He applied for, and was denied asylum because he waited longer than a year after his last illegal entry to make the application. He lied and cheated to get the documentation he needed to start and run a successful business. He even got a TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number) for himself and his business and subsequently paid his taxes. Every single weapon he owned was purchased through the system. He lied on the forms, of course. But he filled out a form for every purchase and passed a background check every single time. The judge's reasoning for denying dismissal on 2A grounds was that laws disarming aliens who were not loyal to the government go back through the founding and are legal under Bruin.
Well, since these unsecured establishments don't have you sign a liability waiver upon entry, I would think it would make sense that if a concealed carrier who refrained to carry their weapon in a establishment with a gun-free zone sign were to be seriously injured by somebody with a weapon, they should be able to sue for gross negligence.
@WholeSomeHomie establishments are sued all the time when their staff/employeee/management neglect the safety of their patrons or customers when certain accidents are preventable and either precautions aren't taken or actions are taken that compromise the safety of the patrons or customers and injuries occur.
@@brucecook502in order for patrons be able to sue establishments for being gun free zones, you would have to strip the owners of these establishments of their 5th Amendment rights. The intention of the 5th Amendment when it pertains to property rights revolve around the ability to possess & control property, exclude persons from said property, and the legal transfer of property. Like it or not gun free zones for private property are an example of the 5th Amendment in which private citizens get full autonomy over there private property. The reason why this does not get brought up in court because lawyers would be opening pandoras box for 2 reasons. 1) The government can compel private citizens to do certain acts within reason as long as it does not violating their rights. Private citizens do not have the powers to force other citizens to do said things nor deprive them of their rights. I cannot force you to come on my property but then strip you of your 2nd Amendment right but if you willingly come on my property and its indicated to be a gun free zone then you have to respect my 5th Amendment right. 2) All Amendments are equally protected and any specific Amendments does not superceed any other Amendment. The Bill of Rights protects ALL rights equally even when we don't agree on certain policies. This is the part of the metaphor my rights begin were yours end but seen from the other persons perspective.
@@joeclaridy Property owners already can't do whatever they want if they invite other people in, such as employees and customers. It's called duty of care. For example, if you have your emotional support spike pit in the middle of your establishment and someone falls into it - you're liable. If you have wet floors without the appropriate sign and it leads to injury - you're liable. If your establishment isn't compliant with any of the rest of OSHA regulations and it leads to injury - you're liable. Therefore, if you post a sign saying "defenseless victims here, please come shoot them" (which is what gun-free zone signs essentially are) - of course you should be liable for whatever happens as a result.
I don't know which ones, but some states have it where if a business choses to display a no firearms allowed sign and they don't have a plan in place and something happens they are liable.
Gun rights are only for people that are legally in a country. I can't just go to X country and start trying to vote or run for office so why does someone else get to do that to my country?
You can't worship as you please in some countries. And the cops can just look through your stuff any time they want in some countries. We're not those countries. Even people accused of being here illegally have 1A and 4A rights until they are found guilty and deported. Besides, do you believe that gun rights are natural, God given rights? Or do you believe they are granted by government only to certain people?
@@ARFCOMNews Crossing a border illegally is a crime. That makes them criminals. Should we let prisoners in jail carry guns? How about terrorists in Guantanamo Bay? You don't get to break our laws and then enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Prisoners don't get to leave when they want, and can't refuse cell searches or personal searches. Illegals should NEVER be allowed to own guns, period. You're wrong on this one.
@@ARFCOMNewsProtecting yourself or someone else is an inalienable right. Our Constitution's protection of this right, and all other rights, should be limited to citizens and legal immigrants. I don't agree with guaranteed constitutional protection to criminal aliens, although we DO extend some of those protections as a courtesy to visitors.
The "Guarantee" of Constitutionally protected Rights is only for Citizens of the United States. That's what the words "citizens of the nation and subject to the laws thereof". People who are Not citizens and subject to the laws thereof, are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights and infringement upon their rights is Not unconstitutional. That's the law like it or not. Has been for 248 years!!!
The rights of our constitution are not given by our government but are supposed to be to be protected by our government, if a person is not an American or in the legal process of becoming an American, those rights do not apply.
Visitors and illegals have rights 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. The difference is Under 18 USC § 922(g)(5), it is a crime for undocumented migrants or nonimmigrants to be in possession of a firearm. It shall be unlawful for any person-... (5) who, being an alien- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States...or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.
@@ARFCOMNewsI understand your point but the 2A states ...the right of the people... the question is are illegals part of the people. In Heller SCOTUS ruled "people" are part of the national community. So are illegals part of the "national community"? I think most people including the SCOTUS would say they are not. Using the plain text of the 2A I say they do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
To your point about liability. Several yeas ago I I had a doctors appointment at my local medical facility. It houses a variety of different types of medical offices....about 20 or more. I was shocked to for the first time see a "No Weapons" decal on the front door. It turned out that they had been bought by a bigger company and their policy was gun free zones in their facilities. I returned to my vehicle and left my pistol under the seat. I went inside, checked in, and demanded that I see the doctor immediately for my examination. That was not going very well because I was making announcements to everyone in the waiting area that we were all in danger because of their policy. Finally my doctor showed up and I explained that they had REMOVED my 2nd amendment rights at the front door. Do my exam so I can get out of this place. I told him I would not be back until this policy was changed. I also explained that the removal of my 2nd A right meant that they would be liable for any harm that may come to me or my wife in their facility and it was unfair to remove a persons constitutional right without providing visible and armed security to keep us safe. If anything happens I will OWN this company! The doctor did my quarterly exam noting the high blood pressure and I left. Upon arriving at home I drafted a letter describing the situation and explaining how they do not provide for your safety and so on. I then went on a rampage posting the contents of the letter on every social media outlet I could find. I posted on the local news TV Facebook Pages, the local papers, the Bay View Medicals Facebook and many more. To make my point, I reposted every day. About 4 weeks later I received a letter from Bay View Medical thanking me for explaining the liability issues they would face if something tragic happened. Long Story Short - They decided it would be less risky to remove the No Guns decal as it would be to costly to have armed security on site. On my next visit a few months later, I carried my EDC into the office and there was no sign and no objections.
Incredibly based. Just because property rights exist does not mean that property owners are immune to liability for the harm they cause with their policies. Imagine if a concert venue banned water. Would people line up to say "but muh 5A" when people drop dead of dehydration?
I routinely ignore that shit unless a pat down or metal detector is in play.... Courthouse, polling places(JIC), and I don't have kids so I don't have any reason to be on school property and live where it is ok to be traveling past one armed in your vehicle, just not leaving the vehicle with it within 1000ft or whatever.
Constitutional rights are for citizens. Period. They have no constitutional rights. Some basic human rights, yes. But absolutely zero 2nd amendment rights if here illegally.
Is that why cops are allowed to search any vehicle without a warrant, just by claiming they think the driver might be illegal? Because people who are accused of being here illegally don't have any rights?
I agree he has a human right to own guns in his home country. Since he was/is an illegal alien he should have no rights guaranteed by OUR constitution. END STORY.
The bill of rights applies to almost everyone, except the 2A part. 1'st amendment, 4'th and 5'th and 8th amendment, all apply to folks here 'illegally'. Been in court and always found to be that way. Not 2A though.
@@jeffhays1968 I wonder why that is. It could be the result of court rulings or something, but I cant see anything written there with an addendum that says "the right of the CITIZENS to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I know my argument kind of sounds like "aint no rule says the dog can't play basketball" but the bill of rights is a document that limits government power, not grant it.
Ya those signs don't work in Missouri. They even turned the detectors off at the local library. They had one of those on the local plasma station until someone planning to shoot them up was stopped by someone who had their gun in a backpack.
In Virginia it’s not illegal to conceal carry into an establishment with a no weapons sign but if they find out and ask you to leave and you don’t, you can be charged with trespassing then.
Gun rights are human rights but criminals shouldn't have guns and illegally entering a country is... Still a crime. You don't get to have it both ways.
@@khester7397 nah you can be locked up and have your property confiscated while you wait for arraignment. Look at all those terrible red flag laws. Why should we be imposing strict laws on actual citizens while ignoring crimes committed by foreign nationals?
@@ARFCOMNews Under federal law, it is a felony for individuals unlawfully present in the United States to possess firearms or ammunition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly prohibits firearm possession by certain categories of individuals, including those "illegally or unlawfully in the United States." This prohibition has been consistently upheld by federal courts. For instance, in August 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of this federal law, rejecting challenges that it violated Second Amendment rights. Therefore, unauthorized immigrants found in possession of firearms can face felony charges under federal law. It's important to note that while federal law sets this baseline, individual states may have additional regulations regarding firearm possession. So it's not "just a misdemeanor".
Gun rights are “natural rights” However I believe the constitution only restrains the USA government from infringing on the natural rights of USA citizens.
The question as to whether or not gun rights are human rights is a silly question. I really don't understand why you're asking it. Of course gun rights are human rights. The Constitution just doesn't protect the rights of every human. It only protects the rights of the people of the United states. Of which illegal immigrants are not a part. Simple.
9:31 We don't usually deny civil rights for misdemeanors? So, they keep their right to bear arms in prison? (You do know that one can go to jail for a misdemeanor, don't you?) So, you're wrong about that; people lose their constitutional rights for misdemeanor crimes all the time. They just aren't lost forever ... But I'd argue that you shouldn't lose your rights forever for a felony either. Once time is served, all rights should be restored. One is either free or not. A person who is knowingly committing a crime has, by their voluntary actions, suspended their own rights. That's why it's legal to bear arms, but not to bear arms during the commission of a crime. If a person is committing a crime by his continued presence in the United States, then he has no constitutional protections for his otherwise inalienable rights. The issue of whether all of this SHOULD be as they are notwithstanding, the question remains: Was this illegal alien committing a crime?
I'm not sure, but I think they passed a law here in Kansas that required any business who prohibited fire arms on their property. Had provide armed security or metal detectors, and could be held liable for any one hurt or killed. At least I think they did. The only thing is, the law has no teeth. As far as I know, nobody is policing the law or holding anything business responsable. The good thing is we got campus carry and it reduced crime of being caught with a gun on you in one of these no gun places to a misdemeanor. Also companys can no longer prohibite their employees from locking their guns in their cars and firing them for it.
@jacka55six60 I do remember that they got a two year stay. So that they could be able to get the money or figure out how they were going to implement the system and comply with the law. Nobody did anything to become compliant. They just let it take effect. I do remember that my mother and her anti gun friends went to WSU to protest the law. It was about a week before the law was supposed to take effect. I told it was pretty pathetic for them to wait almost two years to try and do anything about it. Their protest did nothing but annoy the college and the city of Wichita.
About the illegal alien, just my opinion...US Gun Rights are for US Citizens. I believe this because a person (Foreign National or citizen of a different state) is subject to the laws of the place of their origin. Like, a citizen of California cannot come to Texas and enjoy our freedoms to purchase firearms like those enjoyed by a citizen of Texas. And for this individual, the illegal entry to the US might have been a misdemeanor, but unlawfully obtaining a gun here is a felony.
Wrong. Californians are allowed to carry guns in Texas. And they also enjoy the protection of 1A and 4A rights. As well as every other constitutional right. Illegal aliens have 1A and 4A rights in Texas, too. But if you believe "rights" are granted by the almighty government, I didn't think I can change your mind.
I saw the video. It was two idiots versus one idiot. The two idiots won the battle but the one idiot won the war. And do police really want to use "anyone can have a badge" and "there is no way we could know his credentials were valid" as a defense?
If you want to argue gun rights for felons or people with criminal records than argue that but last I checked coming in to the country illegally is a felony so if a citizen felon who severed his time or a guy who was arrested for but never charged with DV or assault with not conviction can be basically barred for life from the second amendment I'm pretty sure it should apply to criminals who shouldn't even be in the country too.
I cannot help but be reminded of one of our strongest arguments early on in our fight for 2nd Amendment rights. It was and remains that he "people" in the 2nd Amendment must be the same "people" referenced in the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging , , , the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 4th Amendment states, "The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, . . ." The Amendment 9th holds, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE." The 10th Amendment also references the people, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE." Undeniably the courts have held and will continue to hold that illegal aliens ARE part of the people in the 1st and 4th Amendments, but they ARE NOT part of the people referred to in the 9th and 10th Amendments; as they ARE NOT part of the body politic. Clearly, illegal aliens have no right to travel freely or to vote because they are not part of the body politic. It is entirely nonsensical to maintain that all Mexican citizens have a right to vote in our elections even though many Democratic would love to mail them all absentee ballots. Just as an intruder into your home has no right to bear arms (in your home) or self defense; an intruder into our Country has no right to keep and bear arms. So there is in fact AND in practice different definitions for the "people" depending upon which Amendment one is referring.
Good analysis, but I disagree. And largely because the definition of "people" is moot. An illegal alien isn't legally an illegal alien until he is convicted. Just like any other crime. At that point, he should be deported. But until he is convicted, he enjoys the right to bear arms, just like anyone else in this country.
@ as for me, I don’t want the criminal justice system and the woke Left treating someone who has broken into my home as a squatter with rights to stay in it until I can prove in court that they’re not tenets.
Unfortunately, that's more or less the case. The good news is that squatter's rights go both ways so the best way to get squatters out is just to move in with them.
I agree that gun rights are human rights but unfortunately the guy with the collection I am jealous of screwed up. He claimed he was a citizen on at least one 4473 when he knew he wasn't. Had he not checked US citizen he could have still bought the guns (almost) legally as long as he met the documentation requirements. Lying on a 4473 is a crime which might get him deported, without his guns. It would be really cool if he argued that law (or the form itself) were unconstitutional, though and get something heading up the appeal ladder. For the record I do believe in having laws about immigration. I think some of the laws and related processes need to change but we need to be able to choose who we let in. We know there are many who would come here and do harm if they could because some already do.
Most illegal immigrants are not ‘visa overstays’, not even close. DHS estimates over 11M illegal immigrants and about 700K visa overstays. While the 700K overstay figure is pretty accurate, the 11M total is likely to be much higher due to a large number crossing undetected. On the other hand, visas are 100% documented and trackable.
False. About 64% of illegal aliens enter the country legally. But that's not really the point. I'm not claiming, and I haven't seen anyone argue that illegals shouldn't be deported. I'm saying we don't violate somebody's constitutional rights over a misdemeanor BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE A TRIAL.
8:34 Criminals are not allowed to have firearms. Illegally, being in the country makes him a criminal ergo he cant have guns. If he was here as a legal resident, then he would/should have the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is a right for the law-abiding.
The rights are for "we the people" meaning those born in the usa or granted us citizenship. If you are not a u.s citizen you are not guaranted this right and may be deported due to your actions. If that happens you cant take your guns with you to your country of origin.
It's not a citizen vs non-citizen thing. It's a law-abiding vs fugitive from justice thing. Even though it's a misdemeanor, they're still fugitives until arrested, convicted and sentenced. There's also the side question of morality about what rights does one forfeit when one is here illegally. It wasn't controversial that long ago that said that rights were for law abiding, upstanding citizens. But there's been a lot of "lets change the meaning of the words" around upstanding citizen in the past 20 years or so and that leads to the doubt that someone here illegally has claim to the rights they forfeited until they've successfully paid for their crime. Even if it's "just" a misdemeanor.
I would say that gun rights are not given by the government, but they are also not inherently awarded to people who are in the country illegally. Illegal entry into the country and then stocking arms paints a rather disturbing picture with just those to data points.
@@Mr._Infamous wait all you want it's on the 4473 don't be a dick. I fully understand the constitution, but he lied on a federal document about his citizenship hence his arrest it's called a law, but I'll wait.
The guy bought 160+ guns in 11 transactions....if I did that I would have the ATF at my front door. As for his rights, well he lied on the 4473 outright (Not that I approve of it, but it is the law). That's 10 years or $100K for each time...but not for him. I initially wondered if this was another trap to try to slam the FFLs (for example, Operation Fast and Furious) but I don't think the FFL's have been arrested...yet. What this really speaks to is the claim that the lie that the background checks are working. How could the FBI NOT question these purchases? How could they not know he was not a legal citizen. Seems to me the more important thing here is the FBI failed (Again....maybe for the 1,001 time). Arrest the Agents that were involved in clearing this guy. That might light a fire under their a*s. As for it being a Human Right to defend thyself, yes, it is. My general theory on this is the Constitution applies only the Citizens and legal visitors to the United States and we cannot force it upon any other nation or their citizens (Though some claim they wanted to spread it..."W"). Therefore, it does not apply to people who illegally entered a nation. In My NOT-so-humble opinion :)
Something similar happened to my wife shortly after we got married. I was away on Reserve duty when an ATF inspector called our home number and demanded he be allowed to inspect my inventory within the next hour. My wife explained she knew nothing about it and did not have access to the armory. He began badgering and threatening her, so she called me at CENTCOM. I called Marion Hammer (NRA president) and Marion had me to call attorney James H. Jeffries, III. He was an amazing man. He asked me the name of the ATF rep, checked a list he kept on them, then said, "Yes, I know who he is, and he's a compliance inspector, not an armed agent. If he shows up at your house, your wife should call the sheriff and have him arrested if he does not leave." That was the end of it.
We don't ban rights for misdemeanors? Wait, don't we have a case somewhere in the supreme court shuffle for that exact issue? Gun rights gone forever for a paperwork misdemeanor. I guess that's only for 'some' misdemeanors.
Yes, misdemeanors can be felonies when it comes to losing your rights... in MA any misdemeanor where potential jail time is over a certain amount (1.5 or 2.5 years, i forget) you become a prohibited person.... google "misdafelony"
Last i checked, the 2a doesnt say anything anywhere that its okay for said right to be infringed, and i dont remember seeing anything in there about the government granting said right. I think it only limits the government from making any law restricting said right. Could be wrong, except I'm not.
Also, in PA, our government recognizes that no gun signs carry no force of law, so we're free to disregard them all we want. Only thing they can do is kick you out(private property rights) but since I carry concealed, they never have a gun related reason to ask me to leave 🤷🏻♂️
I think the judge had it right when he said that this person is not a citizen of the United States. He has not sworn allegiance to the United States and therefore he does not have the rights of a US citizen to own a gun on us soil. We can go back and forth about potential and other things of stockpiling nefarious reasons and all kinds of stuff. That's a he said she said or an if and maybe what if game. But there is the potential of him and others like him setting up armories for a future nefarious act. Just because he has the guns now doesn't mean he's not playing a future event and that's all what if stuff right? So you can't really say he's a bad guy. But you don't go into a gun store and buy 15 guns at a time for months and months and months like he did where'd all that income come from. That's pretty suspicious amassing that amount of weapons in that short of a period of time.
Gun rights and the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense and preservation are human rights. They don't end at an imaginary line drawn in the dirt. Should he be here? No. Does he have the right to bear arms? Absolutely.
About the illegal with guns he was committing a crime by staying in the United States without a visa. And he have years to get legal. Now I do think it should be easier to become legal.
Beyond comprehension how that ATF agent harass a person, fail to follow orders and potentially resist arrest and still get a $1.6m settlement for a temporary false arrest like the police do to everyone else every day.
The fed is an idiot and I applaud the professionalism of the police that arrested him. The agent was trespassing at the point they showed up. I am sure the lady told him to leave and didn’t want him there. Simple.
We only guarantee your rights be protected as a citizen or else we’d consider a military invasion legal, and we also don’t go storming around the world making sure other countries’ citizens have access to gun rights. Simply put, he inherits the rights of his country until he assumes citizenship here where we recognize his rights.
Anyone who crosses our borders illegally should face felony charges or the business end of a military officer and not a police officer. Our military was built on the idea of defending our borders and they should now as they did years and years ago. Our government has gotten weak about the border
The reason as to why a No Gun sign will not work for any shop who decides to post such signs, is due to the fact that not only are most shops typically covered in welcome signs, advertisements, and licensing signs, it is that many of these signs are far too small to read, that makes it next to impossible for any law abiding gun owner to see the particular sign in question. Shops today are covered in signs and most people only see the large welcomes signs and neon signs, since they tend to be the largest and that catch the eye. Nobody is going to read every stupid sign before they enter a building to do some simple shopping. I can't remember the last time I stopped outside of a store and read every single sign before entering an establishment. It just doesn't happen. Nobody reads all of these signs. Americans got places to be and stuff to do. I think most gun owners today who are properly trained know the places where it's blatantly obvious that their firearm is staying in the car. Most gun owners follow who know the rules of gun ownership follow the rules. But no one is perfect, and there are bound to be mistakes. We want to go to work, stop inside a new shop, go to our favorite restaurants for a bite to eat, and we all do this as quickly as possible. We want to leave with a new product in our hand or a belly full of food. The only times I read signs if when they say Budweiser on them. Haha! Although, if you as a shop owner post a larger more massive signs out front with neon lights that says NO GUNS ALLOWED, making it impossible for anyone to miss, then maybe there is a case to be had here. I think a very small handful of folks, like myself, would respect your request and leave our firearm in our glovebox. But the fact of the matter is that 95% of people carrying are not going to agree to your terms of entry, come in anyways, and you didn't even know they had anything on them. It would also be a bit odd to potentially turn someone away, who could have been a great returning customer, doesn't make much sense to me. You don't want to ever not do business with someone, just because people have differences of opinions and beliefs. Heck, if I owned a shop in a state where concealed carry is legal, I'm going to know as a shop owner that there is a pretty high probability that many people who have been in and out of my shop are people walking around with a firearm, who have every right to carry said firearm. If it's concealed well enough, then I'd be more than happy to do business with anyone entering my shop. My shop is to provide a service for everyone. I want to do business with anyone, put a smile on someone's face, and make a buck. Many who conceal carry went through the courses to learn, obtaining that permit, and know how to conceal carry very well. The point of concealed carry is to not inform anyone, or talk to anyone about how tricked out your Glock 19 is. LOL! When an individual is concealing his or her firearm properly, then there is no cause for alarm. It means the shop owner, and everyone else shopping have no idea an individual has a firearm. What is it about someone concealing a firearm or open carrying a firearm, that shop owners are so afraid of? Who is putting up No Gun signs outside of their shops? I've never once met a responsible gun owner with a permit to carry that I didn't like. The vast majority of responsible gun owners are some of the nicest human beings I've ever met. I'd be more comfortable in a setting where everyone open carries, but unfortunately here in Florida, that open carry vote didn't pass this year. So, if we want to dig deeper as to what shop owners are going to have to do, well the only thing I can possibly think of for gun owners to comply to a shops request over their NO GUNS sign, means there would have to be a a missive change. If a shop owner really wants to ensure that a firearm will not cross their premisses, a new law would have to be passed. There would HAVE to be a highly specific NO GUNS sign made, throughout the U.S., that every gun owner could not possibly not recognize. It's got to be a good sign to make it near impossible for a law-abiding gun owner that can't miss before entering a shop with a firearm. A law must be passed for this particular No Guns sign debate, and because there are too many factors and variables at play here, people are still going to accidentally enter a store with a firearm, even with a sign. We are only human, and accidents happen. What if the person concealing their firearm so happens to be cleaning his or her glasses while walking up to a shop, and for that split second misses the sign? Where does such sign in question need to be located exactly? Should there be 2 signs? One on the exterior of the shop's window, and maybe a painted sign on the ground as well? What if people still refuse, since the odds of getting caught with a firearm is 0% due to the fact that the firearm is 100% concealed? This noe leads us into charges. The RULES we all hate. What kind of of charges are we talking here? What if someone thinks a No GUNS sign simply does not align with what they were taught, nor believe in, who aren't breaking the law. Do shop owners want misdemeanors? Are we talking a felony? Or, would this hypothetical No GUNs sign simply give the shop owner the right to deny service? So, if for some reason a shop owner detects a poorly concealed firearm, breaking their terms, then the shop owner has the right to deny anyone service, who also has every right to tell any individual to leave their premisses. We all know if you don't leave, that is trespassing, a trip to jail, and a $1,000 dollar bail. As of right now, I'd say the best bet is to leave responsible gun owners alone, because as I stated earlier, there is nothing to be afraid of. I'll say it again, gun owners are some of the nicestest people on planet earth and that is a fact. More people need to understand this, and not be afraid. You are safer in an open carry state than a concealed carry state. I don't know why I wrote out such a long comment that I wouldn't blame anyone for not reading this. It's too long, over a very odd hypothetical. This is lawyer territory, but I think some point made here would make sense. A small sign ain't gunna cut it. This would have to be a statewide initiative where people don't mistakenly break the law, just because someone decided one day that posting a No Guns sign would be a great idea. This would not fly with many people, unless of course everyone was well informed. TLDR: A No Guns sign is never going to happen. It's a recipe for disaster. We don't need more rules and regulations right now in the country. Most people just want to be left alone, and enjoy life. Leave people be. Guns aren't scary, it's crazy people who make guns scary. There is nothing to be afraid of. As long as you keep your finger off the trigger, and it'll never go bang. The probably that you are going to be in a situation where you need to pull that trigger on someone, is like a billion to one. Driving down the road tomorrow going 80mph is more of a threat than a firearm. You are never going to use that firearm on someone. It doesn't happen. But, it feels damn good to know that I have a tool, that if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time, and someone attacks, I've got the means to protect myself, my friends, and family. It's also a tool that is just a total blast to shoot. If it's been a bit since you've last been to the range, go visit your local range more often. I think many times the vast majority forget how much fun it is to shoot. Having fun is what gun ownership is all about. Get some ammo and targets and go shoot for a change. Great video ARFCOM News,! I really like your content dude, - Cheers!
If I owned a business the sign I put in the window would say, “if you are a criminal or violent person don’t come in we are all pro 2A.” That video of the ATF agent getting tased and arrested then crying like a snowflake is one of the best videos on the internet.
Over the years I've asked many local stores that have put up "no guns allowed" signs what steps they've taken to ensure my safety since they have agreed to take on that liability. I have yet to receive anything that resembles an answer.
A business isnt advertising that there are no guns, theyre ordering there to be no guns. You cant sue a store with a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign because you saw a man without a shirt, but the store can kick that shirtless man out.
Need that ruling reversed and those Police officers to be protected; the ones that arrested the ATF agent who refused to leave, show ID or follow orders.
Now the woman that that atf agent harassed needs to sue him for the 1.6 million for defamation of character, libel, mental anguish, and pain and suffering!
I can only hit like once! I agree fully with the abject stupidity of no gun signs. I have said for years now that the concept of pretending that your "private property" when it is a storefront, restaurant, or other place where the public can freely access and visit is ridiculous. The thought process that you can exclude people from your place of business just because they choose to exercise a right lawfully is every bit as bad as excluding groups of people for the color of their skin, their gender, or their religious beliefs. The ONLY "private property" where I feel people have any right to exclude anything is in their place of residence, period. And yes, we should very much be able to sue for damages if a shooter decides to shoot up a "no gun" zone.
I got an idea: Make gun free business liable for robberies Go to gun free business Get "robbed" by "someone you don't know" nor "can't remember their face, height, race" or "what car they drive" Collect on damages
I should have the right to defend myself with a firearm in another country and I would want the same for foreigners in my country. We talk about national reciprocity; we should have universal reciprocity.
0:32 I would never set foot anywhere that it's illegal to conceal carry in a "no guns allowed business" (CA, NY, etc). In free states (ID, AK, etc), any business can ask you to leave for carrying, but they have to see it AND ask you to leave. Without both of those things happening, then no law is broken when carrying concealed into a "gun free business."
Gun rights are human rights... That said, illegally crossing the boarder of the Unted States should constitute a Felony and that would answer a lot of questions regarding gun possession as well as voting by undocumented individuals.
If I recall correctly Luby's was sued over such policies back in the nineties after a Woman by the last name of Hupp saw her parents killed in a mass shooting at a Luby's after leaving her handgun in her vehicle as per Luby's then policy
I am NOT a lawyer. Do not take what I have to say as advice on how to carry or where to carry a firearm. It isn't. It is just my opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Let's do a hypothetical exercise: A guy walks into a well known big box store. A sign on the door says they do not allow firearms on the premises. Seeing this sign, the man ignores it and enters. On reaching up to get something off a shelf, an employee sees he is carrying and asks him to leave the store. If he refuses he can be trespassed off the sight and the cops can make him leave. It is hard to criminally trespass someone unless they refuse to leave. But as far as I have gathered, in my NON lawyer research, the store can not file charges for you carrying a gun in their store if the state allows you to carry in public. There is no law saying you cant. It is just their store policy. And again.......not a lawyer. It is always critical for gun owners to do their own information gathering in their state on what carry laws may apply to them. In other words, educate yourself before doing anything that could expose you to prosecution of some kind. We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
I love how you said the “illegal” alien busted with 170 firearms was here for 15 YEARS and had a “successful business”.! So he comes here illegally, then never attempts to file papers to become legal, but has enough $$ to buy 170 firearms! Apparently he paid for those guns picking fruit and doing jobs no Americans will do? And how did he pay taxes with no social security number or whatever number they give legal immigrants to work? Or maybe he didn’t pay taxes and just enjoyed the benefits of living here, while taking that job from a citizen? And how did he buy those guns, when whoever sold each one was also breaking the law? My heart bleeds for him. 😂
My opinion is that the people who hang up the signs to businesses that are open to the public are violating the public’s right to travel and right to bear arms. If your a business open to the public you need to accept the public for who they are. Imagine the sign said “no gay people allowed” it would be a huge difference.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
The Constitution must apply equally to all persons, citizen or not, in America. Otherwise, none of it will apply- there are no second class rights. That he's not a citizen, that he's not here legally, doesn't remove his protections under the rest of the Constitution. The cops can't just beat him until he signs a confession to every unsolved murder they want to clear, then without a jury or council, have a judge declare guilt and sentence. If snuck over, misdemenor; over stayed a visa, civil matter. Neither of those make the Second a second class right. And once you think it does, you're saying you "support the Constitution but". Which makes you a traitor.
Incredibly based and well articulated.
Edit: apparently I need to remind you folks that illegal aliens still enjoy the protections of the 1A, 4A, and 5A until they have a trial. You can't just search any person's car and claim you think they're an illegal. Their 4A rights don't just evaporate the second you claim they're illegal. So until they are proven illegal in court, their rights remain intact.
Excellent point. I believe they're treated as if they had all the other rights, such as the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th. So the 2nd should apply as well. All persons in this nation have these rights, citizen or not, and the constitution should be applied to the world. We would live in a much better place if every nation recognized the rights listed in the constitution.
Also, happy Thanksgiving
Now do death row inmates
Non citizens have no constitutional rights. Simply human rights. They have no rights to a firearm afforded to a CITIZEN
@@James-cr5mc Also, it's been decided many times before that at least resident aliens _do_ have gun rights, even though they never swore allegiance to the US. Is this decision a reversal of that? Also, many Americans never swore that oath - you can be born in the US and never have recited the pledge of allegiance before turning 18 or even 21, after all, and this does not preclude you from gun ownership.
The judge awarded 1.6 million of our taxes to the ATF agent. What a scam.
The taxpayers are always the ones who pay for LE misconduct, whether they're federal or local. I can count the number of officers who've had to pay out themselves on one hand. When they know they'll lose, the government just settles it at no cost to the LE officer.
I’m sure he’s getting a kickback for it.
If you live in Columbus, OH. But even then, insurance usually pays large judgements like this.
And who pays for the insurance? Insurance isn't some magical thing that produces money out of nowhere like the federal reserve. In order for the insurance provider to be profitable their customers as a whole have to pay them more than they pay out. Which means tax payers everywhere pay more.
But, if I heard correctly, this settlement was actually against the individual officers, not the city or the department, so presumably the officers would be individually liable to pay it. Something that essentially never happens when normal citizens sue law enforcement, which might be the most infuriating part of this whole story.
I didn't see any violations of the agent's rights. He refused to get on the ground. If that had happened to any ordinary person, the case would've been the opposite, and everyone knows it.
So the AFT sued because his rights was violated while he was in the process of violating someone else's rights 🤔
There's no excuse for anyone to violate anyone's rights whether a law enforcement or federal agent
@@Lot_Lizard2024🎶 🎵 its like raiiiiiiiin on your wedding day, its a free ride when you've already paid, its the good advice that you just can't take 🎶 🎵
ATF Agent James Burk was previously charged with stealing wine from a Kroger back in 2015. You know, the A in ATF. And he still has a job with the ATF.
Yeah, the same guy. Stole wine.
archive.is/DlSUr
Why am I not surprised? 🤦♂
That atf agent was also previously arrested for swapping price tags off of cheap bottles of wine onto expensive bottles of wine so he could pay less at self checkout. They only caught him because the store workers suspected he had done that many times before. Real stand up guy he is.
Geee.. isn’t that the A part of ATF? 😂
The agent was totally wrong and the suit should be tossed. I hope the appeal goes through.
If they post a no gun sign, i do business elsewhere.
But even if you went in their shop (maybe without buying anything) they should be liable for your complete protection from all illegal harm since they posted a sign that you yourself aren't supposed or able to do so yourself.
@texasranger24 I agree with your statement. My wife and I just vote with our feet.
Unless they're running people through a manometer, I ignore the sign. If for some
weird reason they find out I am armed, All they can do is tell me to leave.
@mountainman8602 or they can call the cops and make a false claim saying there's a crazy armed guy in our shop and they're scared, and then the jump out boys descend on you thinking you're a serious threat.
That's why you should just stay out of "gun free" safe spaces. It's not worth the risk.
I cant read, not my fault
If the "ATF agent" had just complied and followed the cop's orders, everything would have been fine. That's what they always tell us anyway. But for them, their ego is such that they can't submit to anyone else's authority, so instead he refuses to do what he's told and instead argues with the officer. When the peasants do that, we have little to no recourse. But when the enforcers do it to other enforcers, they get $1.2M?!
He would be singing a different song, had he been in their position, and I highly suspect someone would have left in an ambulance.
My question is:
If background checks are so fabulous, how did this guy PASS 170 OF THEM???
That's the kicker...
If you aren't supposed to be in the country at all, nobody know who you are, and how do you legally purchase a firearm commercially? On the 4473 form there is a question about immigration status.......
If I recall correctly Ohio doesn't require background checks on private sales.
@brandonrupp5880
That is true. However, since this guy is here illegally, he is already a felon. He can have a successful business, but legally, he can't own firearms in the US because he's a felon.
It should be investigated where these 170 firearms came from. If someone is straw purchasing for him, they need to be indicted.
I do understand why aliens want to come here, but they must go through the right channels. If they are entering illegally, they should be fingerprinted and retinal scanned, then deported for their first offense. If they are caught again, then they get to stay for a year in one of our luxurious prisons, then deported. Third offense, two years, deported. Fourth offense, 4 years, deported. Also, since they have entered illegally, they can never become a US citizen.
No one, that is not a US citizen, is allowed to vote on any issue in America. This BS of allowing illegals to vote in local and state elections, will become a court case to make it legal for them to vote in a national election. Illegals should not count in the census either. That increases the representation of Demorat controlled areas.
@@brandonrupp5880 Liberty Doll's video on this says that they were not private sales and that he had filled out background check paperwork. She goes into a lot more depth on it.
They recently changed that, you do have to do 4473s for private sales now in Ohio. Somebody did something stupid and ruined it for the rest of us.
He did commit a felony by stating he was not an illegal immigrant. He lied on the 4473 form.
I'll give you that one.
Exactly
No, ignore that part 😂
Maybe he should have spent a bit of that surplus income on pursuing citizenship instead of a few more pistols.
The unconstitutional question?
ATF agent James A Burk’s “professional” conduct is a disgrace. Hopefully incoming director Herrera will straighten things out.
2A rights were written for Americans to be able to protect themselves against foreign invasion, not to protect the invaders right to be armed after they invaded!
As a legal alien I support this message.
Even if entering illegally is just a misdemeanor, summing up working without a permit, paying no taxes, how do you get a driving license without documents, a home to pay rent, start a business...
@alberto5770 The taxes they take from your paycheck... Illegals cost taxpayers over 100 billion a year.
@@alberto5770 They pay sales taxes on every transaction, they pay fees for licenses. I'm not worried.
@bikerbobcat well why don't you move some in with you
@patriotcountry4716 That would mean he would have to take responsibility for his stupid opinions and we know that won't happen.
F the AFT!
F agent JB, and all of his fellow traitors in that agency.
A CITIZEN would have been LUCKY to survive the encounter!!
I think that woman needs to file a harassment suit for, oh I don't know, about $1.6 million in PTSD damages.
Take out the decimal and change it to billion....ala Alex jones.
I'm pretty sure the window to file such an action has long since closed.
What I have learned from the media and "others", is to always howl "I can't breath" when arrested. This is the key to a multi-million dollar retirement.
Guns are not a crime!
The commie government is !!
Fhak the atf !
Fhak the feds !
Every officer knows that the man in uniform is incharge until you are verified. Also isnt this the same ATF boy arrested for stealing wine.
You grovel before costumes?
Where guns are not allowed is where you need them the most. Ignore all signs.
Gun rights are of course human rights. Being in the country illegally is not, when you do that you forfeit your other rights.. This isn't complicated.
Exactly which rights does one forfeit upon illegal entry? Do you really believe they lose all rights? Could they be enslaved? Subjected to medical experiments? Forced to change religions? Tortured?
Did you think for one second before you posted that nonsense?
Being in the country is a right in libs mind .
@@LeoBaker-ir3vo yes, yes, yes, and yes. Somebody illegally enters your home, eats your food, takes your money, and dumps in your toilet then decides he's going to hang out for the rest of his life on your dime at your place and you can't do anything about it because he has rIgHts... *derp*
@@strykerentllcso in your mind, if someone breaks into you house, YOU can hold them against their will for years and make them your slave and it will be OK because they no longer have any rights, not even God given/natural rights?
If rights can be taken away, then they are created by the government and can be taken away from the government. That includes your rights.
@@franklugo6928 Gee, why are there prisons, walnut? LOL In your walnut, nobody can be held against their will while digging ditches on a chain gang because laws and punishment for breaking said laws encroach on human rights... *derp* Take that sovereign citizen nonsense out of here.
He is undeniably a criminal invader. This guy was denied legal entry then he illegally crossed the next night; by his own admission. He applied for, and was denied asylum because he waited longer than a year after his last illegal entry to make the application.
He lied and cheated to get the documentation he needed to start and run a successful business. He even got a TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number) for himself and his business and subsequently paid his taxes. Every single weapon he owned was purchased through the system. He lied on the forms, of course. But he filled out a form for every purchase and passed a background check every single time.
The judge's reasoning for denying dismissal on 2A grounds was that laws disarming aliens who were not loyal to the government go back through the founding and are legal under Bruin.
The woman needs to sue the ATF agent for his crime.
Well, since these unsecured establishments don't have you sign a liability waiver upon entry, I would think it would make sense that if a concealed carrier who refrained to carry their weapon in a establishment with a gun-free zone sign were to be seriously injured by somebody with a weapon, they should be able to sue for gross negligence.
That doesn't even make sense
Show legal precedent
@WholeSomeHomie establishments are sued all the time when their staff/employeee/management neglect the safety of their patrons or customers when certain accidents are preventable and either precautions aren't taken or actions are taken that compromise the safety of the patrons or customers and injuries occur.
@@brucecook502in order for patrons be able to sue establishments for being gun free zones, you would have to strip the owners of these establishments of their 5th Amendment rights. The intention of the 5th Amendment when it pertains to property rights revolve around the ability to possess & control property, exclude persons from said property, and the legal transfer of property.
Like it or not gun free zones for private property are an example of the 5th Amendment in which private citizens get full autonomy over there private property.
The reason why this does not get brought up in court because lawyers would be opening pandoras box for 2 reasons.
1) The government can compel private citizens to do certain acts within reason as long as it does not violating their rights. Private citizens do not have the powers to force other citizens to do said things nor deprive them of their rights. I cannot force you to come on my property but then strip you of your 2nd Amendment right but if you willingly come on my property and its indicated to be a gun free zone then you have to respect my 5th Amendment right.
2) All Amendments are equally protected and any specific Amendments does not superceed any other Amendment. The Bill of Rights protects ALL rights equally even when we don't agree on certain policies. This is the part of the metaphor my rights begin were yours end but seen from the other persons perspective.
@@joeclaridy Property owners already can't do whatever they want if they invite other people in, such as employees and customers. It's called duty of care.
For example, if you have your emotional support spike pit in the middle of your establishment and someone falls into it - you're liable. If you have wet floors without the appropriate sign and it leads to injury - you're liable. If your establishment isn't compliant with any of the rest of OSHA regulations and it leads to injury - you're liable.
Therefore, if you post a sign saying "defenseless victims here, please come shoot them" (which is what gun-free zone signs essentially are) - of course you should be liable for whatever happens as a result.
I don't know which ones, but some states have it where if a business choses to display a no firearms allowed sign and they don't have a plan in place and something happens they are liable.
The agent wasn't fake; but he was gay.
So what you are saying is that he was indeed fake! ;)
Gun rights are only for people that are legally in a country. I can't just go to X country and start trying to vote or run for office so why does someone else get to do that to my country?
You can't worship as you please in some countries. And the cops can just look through your stuff any time they want in some countries. We're not those countries. Even people accused of being here illegally have 1A and 4A rights until they are found guilty and deported. Besides, do you believe that gun rights are natural, God given rights? Or do you believe they are granted by government only to certain people?
@@ARFCOMNews Crossing a border illegally is a crime. That makes them criminals. Should we let prisoners in jail carry guns? How about terrorists in Guantanamo Bay? You don't get to break our laws and then enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Prisoners don't get to leave when they want, and can't refuse cell searches or personal searches. Illegals should NEVER be allowed to own guns, period. You're wrong on this one.
@@ARFCOMNewsProtecting yourself or someone else is an inalienable right. Our Constitution's protection of this right, and all other rights, should be limited to citizens and legal immigrants. I don't agree with guaranteed constitutional protection to criminal aliens, although we DO extend some of those protections as a courtesy to visitors.
@@randomappalachian4635 Exactly, Countries without Borders and Laws cease to exist as a cohesive society.
@@ARFCOMNewsnatural rights all the way.
The "Guarantee" of Constitutionally protected Rights is only for Citizens of the United States. That's what the words "citizens of the nation and subject to the laws thereof". People who are Not citizens and subject to the laws thereof, are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights and infringement upon their rights is Not unconstitutional. That's the law like it or not. Has been for 248 years!!!
Is that why the cops didn't need a warrant to search the guy's house? Because the 4A doesn't apply to him? Because he's an illegal?
Constitution should apply only to legal citizens or visitors.
No human rights for illegals?
Dumb.
The rights of our constitution are not given by our government but are supposed to be to be protected by our government, if a person is not an American or in the legal process of becoming an American, those rights do not apply.
Visitors and illegals have rights 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. The difference is Under 18 USC § 922(g)(5), it is a crime for undocumented migrants or nonimmigrants to be in possession of a firearm. It shall be unlawful for any person-... (5) who, being an alien- (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States...or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.
That's exactly what the code says. 18 USC § 922(g)(5)
Yeah, I think that law is unconstitutional. If they have 4A rights, they have 2A rights. Until they are convicted, of course.
@@ARFCOMNewsI understand your point but the 2A states ...the right of the people... the question is are illegals part of the people. In Heller SCOTUS ruled "people" are part of the national community. So are illegals part of the "national community"? I think most people including the SCOTUS would say they are not. Using the plain text of the 2A I say they do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
The "people" in the 2A is the same people in the 1A.
Gun rights are human rights. But if you break the law crossing our border, it should not be allowed.
To your point about liability. Several yeas ago I I had a doctors appointment at my local medical facility. It houses a variety of different types of medical offices....about 20 or more. I was shocked to for the first time see a "No Weapons" decal on the front door. It turned out that they had been bought by a bigger company and their policy was gun free zones in their facilities. I returned to my vehicle and left my pistol under the seat. I went inside, checked in, and demanded that I see the doctor immediately for my examination. That was not going very well because I was making announcements to everyone in the waiting area that we were all in danger because of their policy. Finally my doctor showed up and I explained that they had REMOVED my 2nd amendment rights at the front door. Do my exam so I can get out of this place. I told him I would not be back until this policy was changed. I also explained that the removal of my 2nd A right meant that they would be liable for any harm that may come to me or my wife in their facility and it was unfair to remove a persons constitutional right without providing visible and armed security to keep us safe. If anything happens I will OWN this company! The doctor did my quarterly exam noting the high blood pressure and I left. Upon arriving at home I drafted a letter describing the situation and explaining how they do not provide for your safety and so on. I then went on a rampage posting the contents of the letter on every social media outlet I could find. I posted on the local news TV Facebook Pages, the local papers, the Bay View Medicals Facebook and many more. To make my point, I reposted every day. About 4 weeks later I received a letter from Bay View Medical thanking me for explaining the liability issues they would face if something tragic happened. Long Story Short - They decided it would be less risky to remove the No Guns decal as it would be to costly to have armed security on site. On my next visit a few months later, I carried my EDC into the office and there was no sign and no objections.
You do know the 5th Amendment does exist and as much as I love the 2nd Amendment private property rights are a thing.
Incredibly based. Just because property rights exist does not mean that property owners are immune to liability for the harm they cause with their policies. Imagine if a concert venue banned water. Would people line up to say "but muh 5A" when people drop dead of dehydration?
I routinely ignore that shit unless a pat down or metal detector is in play.... Courthouse, polling places(JIC), and I don't have kids so I don't have any reason to be on school property and live where it is ok to be traveling past one armed in your vehicle, just not leaving the vehicle with it within 1000ft or whatever.
Constitutional rights are for citizens. Period. They have no constitutional rights. Some basic human rights, yes. But absolutely zero 2nd amendment rights if here illegally.
Is that why cops are allowed to search any vehicle without a warrant, just by claiming they think the driver might be illegal? Because people who are accused of being here illegally don't have any rights?
I agree he has a human right to own guns in his home country. Since he was/is an illegal alien he should have no rights guaranteed by OUR constitution. END STORY.
Some Countries treat invaders quite differently.
God-given rights do not respect borders. Some countries don't respect God given rights.
The bill of rights applies to almost everyone, except the 2A part. 1'st amendment, 4'th and 5'th and 8th amendment, all apply to folks here 'illegally'. Been in court and always found to be that way. Not 2A though.
@@jeffhays1968 I wonder why that is. It could be the result of court rulings or something, but I cant see anything written there with an addendum that says "the right of the CITIZENS to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I know my argument kind of sounds like "aint no rule says the dog can't play basketball" but the bill of rights is a document that limits government power, not grant it.
You just completely contradicted yourself in that short little paragraph
Ya those signs don't work in Missouri. They even turned the detectors off at the local library. They had one of those on the local plasma station until someone planning to shoot them up was stopped by someone who had their gun in a backpack.
In Virginia it’s not illegal to conceal carry into an establishment with a no weapons sign but if they find out and ask you to leave and you don’t, you can be charged with trespassing then.
I believe Ohio is similar.
If gun rights are human rights then cartel members and others crossing the border illegally with guns could not be charged with illegal posession.
Did the cops need a warrant to search that man's house? I mean, he was an illegal, after all. Does the 4A even apply to him?
Gun rights are human rights but criminals shouldn't have guns and illegally entering a country is... Still a crime. You don't get to have it both ways.
It's not a felony. And even if it were, you still have to be convicted before being deprived of your rights.
Do we normally violate people's constitutional rights for a misdemeanor? Before they even get a trial?
@@khester7397 nah you can be locked up and have your property confiscated while you wait for arraignment. Look at all those terrible red flag laws. Why should we be imposing strict laws on actual citizens while ignoring crimes committed by foreign nationals?
@khester7397 it is infact a felony for an illegal immigrant to own a firearm in the USA
@@ARFCOMNews Under federal law, it is a felony for individuals unlawfully present in the United States to possess firearms or ammunition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly prohibits firearm possession by certain categories of individuals, including those "illegally or unlawfully in the United States."
This prohibition has been consistently upheld by federal courts. For instance, in August 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of this federal law, rejecting challenges that it violated Second Amendment rights.
Therefore, unauthorized immigrants found in possession of firearms can face felony charges under federal law. It's important to note that while federal law sets this baseline, individual states may have additional regulations regarding firearm possession.
So it's not "just a misdemeanor".
No gun signs are just suggestions in my book.😂
Gun rights are “natural rights” However I believe the constitution only restrains the USA government from infringing on the natural rights of USA citizens.
That's a very measured and rational take. I dig it.
@ARFCOMNews It's completely asinine. The entire constitution is predicated on "unalienable" human rights. None of it is dependent upon citizenship.
@@khester7397 Criminal aliens are not part of "the people".
You mean after a person is convicted by a court, right?
If dude was an illegal alien, how did he buy 100+ guns legally?
He probably lied on the 4473. But since I believe the 4473 shouldn't exist...
The question as to whether or not gun rights are human rights is a silly question. I really don't understand why you're asking it. Of course gun rights are human rights. The Constitution just doesn't protect the rights of every human. It only protects the rights of the people of the United states. Of which illegal immigrants are not a part. Simple.
Really well said
9:31 We don't usually deny civil rights for misdemeanors? So, they keep their right to bear arms in prison? (You do know that one can go to jail for a misdemeanor, don't you?) So, you're wrong about that; people lose their constitutional rights for misdemeanor crimes all the time. They just aren't lost forever ... But I'd argue that you shouldn't lose your rights forever for a felony either. Once time is served, all rights should be restored. One is either free or not. A person who is knowingly committing a crime has, by their voluntary actions, suspended their own rights. That's why it's legal to bear arms, but not to bear arms during the commission of a crime. If a person is committing a crime by his continued presence in the United States, then he has no constitutional protections for his otherwise inalienable rights. The issue of whether all of this SHOULD be as they are notwithstanding, the question remains: Was this illegal alien committing a crime?
Very well said. I think the ideas of rights being suspended but reinstated once justice was served should be a 2A priority.
Trespassers have no rights.
I'm not sure, but I think they passed a law here in Kansas that required any business who prohibited fire arms on their property. Had provide armed security or metal detectors, and could be held liable for any one hurt or killed. At least I think they did. The only thing is, the law has no teeth. As far as I know, nobody is policing the law or holding anything business responsable. The good thing is we got campus carry and it reduced crime of being caught with a gun on you in one of these no gun places to a misdemeanor. Also companys can no longer prohibite their employees from locking their guns in their cars and firing them for it.
I'd vote for that.
I remember the liberals in Lawrence going ape over that. I moved out of KS a few years ago so I can't say where where the law stands today.
@jacka55six60 I do remember that they got a two year stay. So that they could be able to get the money or figure out how they were going to implement the system and comply with the law. Nobody did anything to become compliant. They just let it take effect. I do remember that my mother and her anti gun friends went to WSU to protest the law. It was about a week before the law was supposed to take effect. I told it was pretty pathetic for them to wait almost two years to try and do anything about it. Their protest did nothing but annoy the college and the city of Wichita.
About the illegal alien, just my opinion...US Gun Rights are for US Citizens. I believe this because a person (Foreign National or citizen of a different state) is subject to the laws of the place of their origin. Like, a citizen of California cannot come to Texas and enjoy our freedoms to purchase firearms like those enjoyed by a citizen of Texas. And for this individual, the illegal entry to the US might have been a misdemeanor, but unlawfully obtaining a gun here is a felony.
Wrong. Californians are allowed to carry guns in Texas. And they also enjoy the protection of 1A and 4A rights. As well as every other constitutional right. Illegal aliens have 1A and 4A rights in Texas, too. But if you believe "rights" are granted by the almighty government, I didn't think I can change your mind.
I saw the video. It was two idiots versus one idiot. The two idiots won the battle but the one idiot won the war. And do police really want to use "anyone can have a badge" and "there is no way we could know his credentials were valid" as a defense?
As a defense for them, yes. For anyone else, absolutely not.
If you want to argue gun rights for felons or people with criminal records than argue that but last I checked coming in to the country illegally is a felony so if a citizen felon who severed his time or a guy who was arrested for but never charged with DV or assault with not conviction can be basically barred for life from the second amendment I'm pretty sure it should apply to criminals who shouldn't even be in the country too.
It's not. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. And yes, felons should have their rights restored when they are released.
I cannot help but be reminded of one of our strongest arguments early on in our fight for 2nd Amendment rights. It was and remains that he "people" in the 2nd Amendment must be the same "people" referenced in the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging , , , the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 4th Amendment states, "The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, . . ." The Amendment 9th holds, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE." The 10th Amendment also references the people, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE." Undeniably the courts have held and will continue to hold that illegal aliens ARE part of the people in the 1st and 4th Amendments, but they ARE NOT part of the people referred to in the 9th and 10th Amendments; as they ARE NOT part of the body politic. Clearly, illegal aliens have no right to travel freely or to vote because they are not part of the body politic. It is entirely nonsensical to maintain that all Mexican citizens have a right to vote in our elections even though many Democratic would love to mail them all absentee ballots. Just as an intruder into your home has no right to bear arms (in your home) or self defense; an intruder into our Country has no right to keep and bear arms. So there is in fact AND in practice different definitions for the "people" depending upon which Amendment one is referring.
Good analysis, but I disagree. And largely because the definition of "people" is moot. An illegal alien isn't legally an illegal alien until he is convicted. Just like any other crime. At that point, he should be deported. But until he is convicted, he enjoys the right to bear arms, just like anyone else in this country.
@ as for me, I don’t want the criminal justice system and the woke Left treating someone who has broken into my home as a squatter with rights to stay in it until I can prove in court that they’re not tenets.
Unfortunately, that's more or less the case. The good news is that squatter's rights go both ways so the best way to get squatters out is just to move in with them.
I agree that gun rights are human rights but unfortunately the guy with the collection I am jealous of screwed up. He claimed he was a citizen on at least one 4473 when he knew he wasn't. Had he not checked US citizen he could have still bought the guns (almost) legally as long as he met the documentation requirements. Lying on a 4473 is a crime which might get him deported, without his guns. It would be really cool if he argued that law (or the form itself) were unconstitutional, though and get something heading up the appeal ladder.
For the record I do believe in having laws about immigration. I think some of the laws and related processes need to change but we need to be able to choose who we let in. We know there are many who would come here and do harm if they could because some already do.
Most illegal immigrants are not ‘visa overstays’, not even close. DHS estimates over 11M illegal immigrants and about 700K visa overstays.
While the 700K overstay figure is pretty accurate, the 11M total is likely to be much higher due to a large number crossing undetected. On the other hand, visas are 100% documented and trackable.
False. About 64% of illegal aliens enter the country legally. But that's not really the point. I'm not claiming, and I haven't seen anyone argue that illegals shouldn't be deported. I'm saying we don't violate somebody's constitutional rights over a misdemeanor BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE A TRIAL.
has a medical condition, soooo what’s the physical standards for this or any LEO, especially this one tasked to do field work?!
The woman now needs to sue the fed civilly and collect the million $$. She's the one who deserves it.
8:34 Criminals are not allowed to have firearms.
Illegally, being in the country makes him a criminal ergo he cant have guns.
If he was here as a legal resident, then he would/should have the right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms is a right for the law-abiding.
Being convicted makes a person a criminal. It's an important distinction. Unless you're a big red-flag law supporter?
Do we normally violate a person's constitutional rights when they are accused of jaywalking or stealing a candy bar?
The rights are for "we the people" meaning those born in the usa or granted us citizenship. If you are not a u.s citizen you are not guaranted this right and may be deported due to your actions. If that happens you cant take your guns with you to your country of origin.
Anybody who'd take the ATF's shilling isn't a "human being", so we're okay.
It's not a citizen vs non-citizen thing. It's a law-abiding vs fugitive from justice thing. Even though it's a misdemeanor, they're still fugitives until arrested, convicted and sentenced.
There's also the side question of morality about what rights does one forfeit when one is here illegally.
It wasn't controversial that long ago that said that rights were for law abiding, upstanding citizens. But there's been a lot of "lets change the meaning of the words" around upstanding citizen in the past 20 years or so and that leads to the doubt that someone here illegally has claim to the rights they forfeited until they've successfully paid for their crime. Even if it's "just" a misdemeanor.
This is only an issue because one party believes this can be the key to securing unchecked power for many decades in Washington.
He lies on the firearms form claiming he was a U.S. Citizen. I believe that is a felony. SEMPER FI
4473s should be illegal. Free Hunter Biden!
@@ARFCOMNews The line.
Did you not notice it when you were crossing it?
🅱️ased@@ARFCOMNews
@@ARFCOMNewsshould be? Perhaps but the guy committed an actual crime.
Gun crimes are not real crimes.
I would say that gun rights are not given by the government, but they are also not inherently awarded to people who are in the country illegally. Illegal entry into the country and then stocking arms paints a rather disturbing picture with just those to data points.
Not granted by the government but is for citizens only. Don’t really want illegal people or visiting guests carrying guns around this country
I agree whole heartedly, I'm pretty sure the guy lied on the 4473 about being a US citizen hence the arrest.
Go ahead and try to find the word citizen in the Constitution.
I'll wait...
Classic hypocrites. Probably call yourself a "Christian" too.
@@Mr._Infamous wait all you want it's on the 4473 don't be a dick. I fully understand the constitution, but he lied on a federal document about his citizenship hence his arrest it's called a law, but I'll wait.
@@Mr._Infamous Go ahead and let me know who would hand a firearm to a burglar. I'll wait...
Arms rights are citizens rights, just like voting. Not for invaders. Non citizens get to practice only so far as we permit in our laws
An ATF field agent with a medical condition? I don't think so.
Did he lie on some Form?
I think it's hilarious he spouted off the same bulshit everybody does when they get locked up. Oh oh I got a medical condition😂😂😂
Fkn pansy
Well, if we are to consider illegals to be invaders than he would count as an armed invader, there is that. Fairly well armed at that.
The guy bought 160+ guns in 11 transactions....if I did that I would have the ATF at my front door. As for his rights, well he lied on the 4473 outright (Not that I approve of it, but it is the law). That's 10 years or $100K for each time...but not for him. I initially wondered if this was another trap to try to slam the FFLs (for example, Operation Fast and Furious) but I don't think the FFL's have been arrested...yet. What this really speaks to is the claim that the lie that the background checks are working. How could the FBI NOT question these purchases? How could they not know he was not a legal citizen. Seems to me the more important thing here is the FBI failed (Again....maybe for the 1,001 time). Arrest the Agents that were involved in clearing this guy. That might light a fire under their a*s. As for it being a Human Right to defend thyself, yes, it is. My general theory on this is the Constitution applies only the Citizens and legal visitors to the United States and we cannot force it upon any other nation or their citizens (Though some claim they wanted to spread it..."W"). Therefore, it does not apply to people who illegally entered a nation. In My NOT-so-humble opinion :)
So is that why the cops didn't need a warrant to search his house? Because as an illegal alien he doesn't have 4A rights?
Something similar happened to my wife shortly after we got married. I was away on Reserve duty when an ATF inspector called our home number and demanded he be allowed to inspect my inventory within the next hour. My wife explained she knew nothing about it and did not have access to the armory. He began badgering and threatening her, so she called me at CENTCOM. I called Marion Hammer (NRA president) and Marion had me to call attorney James H. Jeffries, III. He was an amazing man. He asked me the name of the ATF rep, checked a list he kept on them, then said, "Yes, I know who he is, and he's a compliance inspector, not an armed agent. If he shows up at your house, your wife should call the sheriff and have him arrested if he does not leave." That was the end of it.
Based.
Human rights are not granted by the government that I do know.
No "gun" is great grounds for suing the business pretty fucking easy.
We don't ban rights for misdemeanors? Wait, don't we have a case somewhere in the supreme court shuffle for that exact issue? Gun rights gone forever for a paperwork misdemeanor. I guess that's only for 'some' misdemeanors.
Yes, misdemeanors can be felonies when it comes to losing your rights... in MA any misdemeanor where potential jail time is over a certain amount (1.5 or 2.5 years, i forget) you become a prohibited person.... google "misdafelony"
No way! This "ATF agent" should be in prison and shouldn't be awarded ANYTHING!
Last i checked, the 2a doesnt say anything anywhere that its okay for said right to be infringed, and i dont remember seeing anything in there about the government granting said right. I think it only limits the government from making any law restricting said right. Could be wrong, except I'm not.
Also, in PA, our government recognizes that no gun signs carry no force of law, so we're free to disregard them all we want. Only thing they can do is kick you out(private property rights) but since I carry concealed, they never have a gun related reason to ask me to leave 🤷🏻♂️
Doe's the 2nd apply to the World?
I think the judge had it right when he said that this person is not a citizen of the United States. He has not sworn allegiance to the United States and therefore he does not have the rights of a US citizen to own a gun on us soil. We can go back and forth about potential and other things of stockpiling nefarious reasons and all kinds of stuff. That's a he said she said or an if and maybe what if game. But there is the potential of him and others like him setting up armories for a future nefarious act. Just because he has the guns now doesn't mean he's not playing a future event and that's all what if stuff right? So you can't really say he's a bad guy. But you don't go into a gun store and buy 15 guns at a time for months and months and months like he did where'd all that income come from. That's pretty suspicious amassing that amount of weapons in that short of a period of time.
Gun rights and the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense and preservation are human rights. They don't end at an imaginary line drawn in the dirt. Should he be here? No. Does he have the right to bear arms? Absolutely.
That "imaginary line in the dirt" is exactly as imaginary as your property line and threshold to your front door.
standard lolbertard L
About the illegal with guns he was committing a crime by staying in the United States without a visa. And he have years to get legal. Now I do think it should be easier to become legal.
At worst, he committed a misdemeanor. We don't normally violate a man's constitutional rights for misdemeanors. Mostly.
2A Human right. Voting on the hand.
Indeed. Voting is for citizens.
Beyond comprehension how that ATF agent harass a person, fail to follow orders and potentially resist arrest and still get a $1.6m settlement for a temporary false arrest like the police do to everyone else every day.
That ATF agent should no longer be an ATF agent! With his attitude, I wouldn't want him for security guard at the local dump!!
The fed is an idiot and I applaud the professionalism of the police that arrested him. The agent was trespassing at the point they showed up. I am sure the lady told him to leave and didn’t want him there. Simple.
That's how I see it.
We only guarantee your rights be protected as a citizen or else we’d consider a military invasion legal, and we also don’t go storming around the world making sure other countries’ citizens have access to gun rights. Simply put, he inherits the rights of his country until he assumes citizenship here where we recognize his rights.
Anyone who crosses our borders illegally should face felony charges or the business end of a military officer and not a police officer. Our military was built on the idea of defending our borders and they should now as they did years and years ago. Our government has gotten weak about the border
Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor. And posse comitatus prevents the military being used to enforce civilian law.
The reason as to why a No Gun sign will not work for any shop who decides to post such signs, is due to the fact that not only are most shops typically covered in welcome signs, advertisements, and licensing signs, it is that many of these signs are far too small to read, that makes it next to impossible for any law abiding gun owner to see the particular sign in question.
Shops today are covered in signs and most people only see the large welcomes signs and neon signs, since they tend to be the largest and that catch the eye. Nobody is going to read every stupid sign before they enter a building to do some simple shopping. I can't remember the last time I stopped outside of a store and read every single sign before entering an establishment. It just doesn't happen. Nobody reads all of these signs. Americans got places to be and stuff to do. I think most gun owners today who are properly trained know the places where it's blatantly obvious that their firearm is staying in the car. Most gun owners follow who know the rules of gun ownership follow the rules. But no one is perfect, and there are bound to be mistakes. We want to go to work, stop inside a new shop, go to our favorite restaurants for a bite to eat, and we all do this as quickly as possible. We want to leave with a new product in our hand or a belly full of food. The only times I read signs if when they say Budweiser on them. Haha! Although, if you as a shop owner post a larger more massive signs out front with neon lights that says NO GUNS ALLOWED, making it impossible for anyone to miss, then maybe there is a case to be had here. I think a very small handful of folks, like myself, would respect your request and leave our firearm in our glovebox. But the fact of the matter is that 95% of people carrying are not going to agree to your terms of entry, come in anyways, and you didn't even know they had anything on them. It would also be a bit odd to potentially turn someone away, who could have been a great returning customer, doesn't make much sense to me. You don't want to ever not do business with someone, just because people have differences of opinions and beliefs. Heck, if I owned a shop in a state where concealed carry is legal, I'm going to know as a shop owner that there is a pretty high probability that many people who have been in and out of my shop are people walking around with a firearm, who have every right to carry said firearm. If it's concealed well enough, then I'd be more than happy to do business with anyone entering my shop. My shop is to provide a service for everyone. I want to do business with anyone, put a smile on someone's face, and make a buck. Many who conceal carry went through the courses to learn, obtaining that permit, and know how to conceal carry very well. The point of concealed carry is to not inform anyone, or talk to anyone about how tricked out your Glock 19 is. LOL! When an individual is concealing his or her firearm properly, then there is no cause for alarm. It means the shop owner, and everyone else shopping have no idea an individual has a firearm. What is it about someone concealing a firearm or open carrying a firearm, that shop owners are so afraid of? Who is putting up No Gun signs outside of their shops? I've never once met a responsible gun owner with a permit to carry that I didn't like.
The vast majority of responsible gun owners are some of the nicest human beings I've ever met. I'd be more comfortable in a setting where everyone open carries, but unfortunately here in Florida, that open carry vote didn't pass this year. So, if we want to dig deeper as to what shop owners are going to have to do, well the only thing I can possibly think of for gun owners to comply to a shops request over their NO GUNS sign, means there would have to be a a missive change. If a shop owner really wants to ensure that a firearm will not cross their premisses, a new law would have to be passed. There would HAVE to be a highly specific NO GUNS sign made, throughout the U.S., that every gun owner could not possibly not recognize. It's got to be a good sign to make it near impossible for a law-abiding gun owner that can't miss before entering a shop with a firearm. A law must be passed for this particular No Guns sign debate, and because there are too many factors and variables at play here, people are still going to accidentally enter a store with a firearm, even with a sign. We are only human, and accidents happen. What if the person concealing their firearm so happens to be cleaning his or her glasses while walking up to a shop, and for that split second misses the sign? Where does such sign in question need to be located exactly? Should there be 2 signs? One on the exterior of the shop's window, and maybe a painted sign on the ground as well? What if people still refuse, since the odds of getting caught with a firearm is 0% due to the fact that the firearm is 100% concealed? This noe leads us into charges. The RULES we all hate. What kind of of charges are we talking here? What if someone thinks a No GUNS sign simply does not align with what they were taught, nor believe in, who aren't breaking the law. Do shop owners want misdemeanors? Are we talking a felony? Or, would this hypothetical No GUNs sign simply give the shop owner the right to deny service? So, if for some reason a shop owner detects a poorly concealed firearm, breaking their terms, then the shop owner has the right to deny anyone service, who also has every right to tell any individual to leave their premisses. We all know if you don't leave, that is trespassing, a trip to jail, and a $1,000 dollar bail. As of right now, I'd say the best bet is to leave responsible gun owners alone, because as I stated earlier, there is nothing to be afraid of. I'll say it again, gun owners are some of the nicestest people on planet earth and that is a fact. More people need to understand this, and not be afraid. You are safer in an open carry state than a concealed carry state. I don't know why I wrote out such a long comment that I wouldn't blame anyone for not reading this. It's too long, over a very odd hypothetical. This is lawyer territory, but I think some point made here would make sense. A small sign ain't gunna cut it. This would have to be a statewide initiative where people don't mistakenly break the law, just because someone decided one day that posting a No Guns sign would be a great idea. This would not fly with many people, unless of course everyone was well informed.
TLDR: A No Guns sign is never going to happen. It's a recipe for disaster. We don't need more rules and regulations right now in the country. Most people just want to be left alone, and enjoy life. Leave people be. Guns aren't scary, it's crazy people who make guns scary. There is nothing to be afraid of. As long as you keep your finger off the trigger, and it'll never go bang. The probably that you are going to be in a situation where you need to pull that trigger on someone, is like a billion to one. Driving down the road tomorrow going 80mph is more of a threat than a firearm. You are never going to use that firearm on someone. It doesn't happen. But, it feels damn good to know that I have a tool, that if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time, and someone attacks, I've got the means to protect myself, my friends, and family. It's also a tool that is just a total blast to shoot. If it's been a bit since you've last been to the range, go visit your local range more often. I think many times the vast majority forget how much fun it is to shoot. Having fun is what gun ownership is all about. Get some ammo and targets and go shoot for a change.
Great video ARFCOM News,!
I really like your content dude,
- Cheers!
If I owned a business the sign I put in the window would say, “if you are a criminal or violent person don’t come in we are all pro 2A.”
That video of the ATF agent getting tased and arrested then crying like a snowflake is one of the best videos on the internet.
Over the years I've asked many local stores that have put up "no guns allowed" signs what steps they've taken to ensure my safety since they have agreed to take on that liability. I have yet to receive anything that resembles an answer.
The illegal had plenty of time to become legal.
And only Citizens of a country should be armed in said country.. My 2 cents.
A business isnt advertising that there are no guns, theyre ordering there to be no guns. You cant sue a store with a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign because you saw a man without a shirt, but the store can kick that shirtless man out.
The 5th Amendment has multiple uses including property rights
If they tell me I'm not allowed to wear a shirt and then ignore people not wearing shirts?
Private businesses should be allowed to ban firearms, as long as they take security liabilities of their patrons.
Need that ruling reversed and those Police officers to be protected; the ones that arrested the ATF agent who refused to leave, show ID or follow orders.
Now the woman that that atf agent harassed needs to sue him for the 1.6 million for defamation of character, libel, mental anguish, and pain and suffering!
The lady should sue that aft agent for harassment.
I can only hit like once!
I agree fully with the abject stupidity of no gun signs.
I have said for years now that the concept of pretending that your "private property" when it is a storefront, restaurant, or other place where the public can freely access and visit is ridiculous.
The thought process that you can exclude people from your place of business just because they choose to exercise a right lawfully is every bit as bad as excluding groups of people for the color of their skin, their gender, or their religious beliefs.
The ONLY "private property" where I feel people have any right to exclude anything is in their place of residence, period.
And yes, we should very much be able to sue for damages if a shooter decides to shoot up a "no gun" zone.
Imagine if they posted a "no EpiPens" sign.
I got an idea:
Make gun free business liable for robberies
Go to gun free business
Get "robbed" by "someone you don't know" nor "can't remember their face, height, race" or "what car they drive"
Collect on damages
This is absurd that he was awarded a settlement. It was their jurisdiction and he was non compliant. End of story.
I should have the right to defend myself with a firearm in another country and I would want the same for foreigners in my country. We talk about national reciprocity; we should have universal reciprocity.
0:32 I would never set foot anywhere that it's illegal to conceal carry in a "no guns allowed business" (CA, NY, etc). In free states (ID, AK, etc), any business can ask you to leave for carrying, but they have to see it AND ask you to leave. Without both of those things happening, then no law is broken when carrying concealed into a "gun free business."
"Gun rights" might be human rights, but the citizens laws can overrule "human rights, " de facto.
I'll put you down in the "rights are granted by government" column.
@ I guess you don’t believe in my “human”, “natural “ right to deprive non-citizens of firearms rights
Nobody has a right to violate the rights of any other person.
Gun rights are human rights... That said, illegally crossing the boarder of the Unted States should constitute a Felony and that would answer a lot of questions regarding gun possession as well as voting by undocumented individuals.
If I recall correctly Luby's was sued over such policies back in the nineties after a Woman by the last name of Hupp saw her parents killed in a mass shooting at a Luby's after leaving her handgun in her vehicle as per Luby's then policy
I am NOT a lawyer. Do not take what I have to say as advice on how to carry or where to carry a firearm. It isn't. It is just my opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Let's do a hypothetical exercise: A guy walks into a well known big box store. A sign on the door says they do not allow firearms on the premises. Seeing this sign, the man ignores it and enters. On reaching up to get something off a shelf, an employee sees he is carrying and asks him to leave the store. If he refuses he can be trespassed off the sight and the cops can make him leave. It is hard to criminally trespass someone unless they refuse to leave. But as far as I have gathered, in my NON lawyer research, the store can not file charges for you carrying a gun in their store if the state allows you to carry in public. There is no law saying you cant. It is just their store policy. And again.......not a lawyer. It is always critical for gun owners to do their own information gathering in their state on what carry laws may apply to them. In other words, educate yourself before doing anything that could expose you to prosecution of some kind. We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
Our rights and constitution doesn’t apply to criminals who brake into this country.
I love how you said the “illegal” alien busted with 170 firearms was here for 15 YEARS and had a “successful business”.! So he comes here illegally, then never attempts to file papers to become legal, but has enough $$ to buy 170 firearms! Apparently he paid for those guns picking fruit and doing jobs no Americans will do? And how did he pay taxes with no social security number or whatever number they give legal immigrants to work? Or maybe he didn’t pay taxes and just enjoyed the benefits of living here, while taking that job from a citizen? And how did he buy those guns, when whoever sold each one was also breaking the law? My heart bleeds for him. 😂
My opinion is that the people who hang up the signs to businesses that are open to the public are violating the public’s right to travel and right to bear arms. If your a business open to the public you need to accept the public for who they are. Imagine the sign said “no gay people allowed” it would be a huge difference.
Or a sign prohibiting asthma inhalers or epinephrine pens.
absolutely on that no pews sign stuff. All of it. Including being able to hold the business liable for any firearm harm that comes on their grounds