This video was demonitized. Thanks to XS sights for making it possible to do this. If you would like to catch up with Mark's video: ua-cam.com/video/iwbKQGR0Er8/v-deo.html
@@VSO_Gun_Channel [Your Name] [Your Address] [City, State, ZIP Code] [Date] To the Members of the United States Congress: Subject: Re-Evaluating the Gun Control Act of 1968: Restoring Unalienable Rights and Addressing Historical Injustices** Dear Members of Congress, I write to you with deep concern regarding the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) and its continued impact on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. While the law was framed as a public safety measure, its foundation and implementation have perpetuated systemic inequities that disproportionately disenfranchise millions of Americans-particularly minorities and economically disadvantaged individuals-from exercising their unalienable right to keep and bear arms. 1. The Second Amendment: A Right the Government Did Not Grant and Cannot Take Away The Second Amendment protects an inherent, natural right to self-defense and the preservation of liberty. This right, as unalienable as life and liberty, does not originate from government and therefore cannot be justly revoked by it. The GCA violates this principle by stripping over 19 million Americans-the vast majority of whom are non-violent offenders-of their constitutional rights. The GCA builds upon decades of discriminatory firearm legislation, which were never about public safety but about controlling marginalized groups. These laws ignored the principles of equality and justice enshrined in the Constitution and created a framework for permanent disenfranchisement under the guise of legality. 2. Gun Laws Before 1968: A Racist and Discriminatory Legacy Prior to 1968, most gun control laws in the United States were explicitly designed to target and disarm Black Americans, Hispanics, and other marginalized communities. Examples include: • The Black Codes after the Civil War, which explicitly prohibited newly freed Black Americans from owning firearms to prevent self-defense against racial violence. • Jim Crow-era laws, which used poll taxes, literacy tests, and vague “good moral character” clauses to deny minorities firearm ownership. • The Mulford Act of 1967, passed in direct response to the Black Panther Party’s lawful open-carry protests. This California law marked a turning point in modern gun control, using public fear of armed Black activists to justify sweeping restrictions. These laws were not about ensuring safety but about ensuring that certain groups remained powerless and unable to challenge oppression. The GCA, while appearing race-neutral on its surface, perpetuated these discriminatory practices on a national scale, disproportionately impacting Black and Hispanic Americans and poor whites. 3. Law Enforcement Cannot Be Expected to Provide Personal Protection The need for the Second Amendment is underscored by rulings from this Court, which affirm that law enforcement has no constitutional duty to protect individuals unless they are in custody. Key cases include: • DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989), where the Court ruled the government has no obligation to shield individuals from private harm. • Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), which determined police cannot be held accountable for failing to enforce protective orders. When law enforcement is not obligated to protect individual citizens, the right to self-defense becomes paramount. The Second Amendment exists to empower citizens to fulfill this responsibility, particularly when the government cannot or will not intervene. Yet the GCA and its legacy laws leave millions defenseless, undermining the very purpose of the Second Amendment. 4. The Battle of Athens: A Historic Reminder of the Second Amendment’s Purpose The Battle of Athens in 1946 demonstrates the necessity of the Second Amendment as a safeguard against government corruption and tyranny. Armed citizens in McMinn County, Tennessee, rose up to protect their community from election fraud and abuse by corrupt officials. This event underscores that the Second Amendment is not merely about self-defense but also about ensuring a government accountable to its people. The disarmament of millions of Americans under the GCA contradicts this historical lesson, leaving communities vulnerable to abuse, oppression, and systemic injustice. 5. The 13th and 14th Amendments: Rights Circumvented by Design The 13th Amendment, while abolishing slavery, includes an exception for punishment of crime. This loophole has been weaponized to disproportionately strip minorities of their constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment. Mass incarceration and felony disenfranchisement policies have effectively created a system where rights are denied based on criminal convictions-often rooted in racially biased policing and judicial practices. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause guarantees that all citizens have access to the same rights under the law. Yet the GCA’s implementation disproportionately affects marginalized groups, denying them equal access to the fundamental right of self-defense. This systemic inequity is not only unconstitutional but also deeply unjust. 6. The GCA Fails the Bruen Test In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that firearm regulations must align with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment. The GCA fails this standard: • No Historical Justification for Felon Disarmament: At the time of the Founding, only those posing an active and immediate danger to society were disarmed-not broad classes of individuals based on prior convictions. • Modern Overreach: The GCA’s permanent disarmament of felons and reliance on extensive federal oversight have no historical precedent and violate the Second Amendment’s guarantees. 7. A Call for Congressional Action It is within Congress’s power to correct these injustices and restore the rights of millions of Americans. I respectfully urge you to: • Reform the Felon Disarmament Provisions of the GCA: Restore Second Amendment rights to non-violent offenders and individuals who have served their sentences, demonstrating rehabilitation and posing no ongoing threat. • Acknowledge and Address the GCA’s Discriminatory Legacy: Confront the systemic inequities that have perpetuated racial and economic disparities in firearm ownership. • Affirm the Unalienable Nature of the Second Amendment: Ensure that no law undermines the natural right of self-defense for law-abiding citizens. Conclusion The Gun Control Act of 1968 represents an unconstitutional overreach that infringes upon unalienable rights, perpetuates systemic injustices, and leaves millions of Americans defenseless in a society where personal safety is not guaranteed. The discriminatory history of gun laws in America-from the Black Codes to the Mulford Act to the GCA-demands that we confront and correct these injustices. The lessons of the Battle of Athens in 1946 and today’s inequities remind us of the Second Amendment’s purpose: to safeguard liberty, equality, and personal security. I urge you to take immediate steps to re-evaluate the GCA and its impact, ensuring that our nation’s laws reflect the values of justice, equality, and liberty for all. Respectfully, [Your Name] [Your Contact Information]
@MichaelWalters-r5m True. We are all aware that form 4473 is an unlawful infringement as there is no 2nd Amendment requirement for it to keep and bear arms and that it violates due process, right to privacy, and property rights. Form requirements are not Constitutional to exercise any Constitutional right.
They get to use the systems incorrectly to their benefit, yet we have to use the system correctly, to undo their illegal actions? This is why we have lost so much. They cheat, but we have to play by the rules.
A Right cannot be taken or lost A privilege can If you are safe enough to be trusted on the streets.. you are safe enough to own and carry a gun for your own protection Up until 1968 there wasn’t prohibited persons
That's exactly one of the major differences between a right and a privilege. Thank you for pointing it out because so many seem to have forgotten. Also, taking a license converts the exercise of a right into a privilege. Everyone should think and think some more before taking any license.
@@BeansFrank-l5b From what I've seen on the states law site that only applies to religious stuff and door to door salesmen licenses but i might be missing something or the site could be wrong.
I don’t know if the whole 4473 really is unconstitutional or not but I do know some aspects of it with the questions they ask are. Any questions that ask you to potentially self-incriminate yourself, you could argue goes against your 5th amendment right.
Glad to hear people are finally figuring that out. If I can't walk in and buy it right then and walk out with it after I pay for it right then without having to sit and wait for some government bureaucrat to decide whether or not I am worthy then the Constitution is being violated up until 1968 my father could walk in any sort of gun so I want that gun lay down his money get the gun and go he didn't have to ask anybody's I was 8 years old at the time and theoretically I could still do it that's so long as my parents approved. Then stinking Democrats and rhinos come along and decide I shouldn't have the rights I had before. I got a good mind to go to the gun shop fill out the form and then turn around and say I want to leave with it now and when I can't file a lawsuit myself.
We need better people in the jury pool like you that care about the constitution. This is why some people are in prison because people don’t know the power of the jury.
Hell yes it is unconstitutional as hell. Just take a look at the questions on the background check and how they have evolved over the past decades. I remember what those questions looked like when I turned 18 and started buying firearms back in 2001, and at least up till about a year ago when I bought my last firearm on the books. Those questions keep applying to more and more people and inevitably each time when a question changes or gets added and ends up extending to more people, you will have turned thousands, potentially millions of lifelong responsible gun owners into criminals overnight just for simply owning firearms and people won't even be aware of it until they learn the hard way when they find themselves at least being disarmed and losing Firearms they work hard to pay for simply being discovered for having firearms with no crime being involved, and a lot of people will end up in jail for this. These damn background checks causes more harm than it prevents. There's a damn reason why our founding fathers said government shall not infringe our rights to keep and bear arms, and that is exactly what government has been doing. If a person does not have a long history of violent background, or if they don't have an extreme mental impairment or longterm history that includes them having openly being a threat to themselves or others, then I don't see any good damn reason to deny a person to have firearms for protection at least. Any other reason is arbitrary and unreasonable and no doubt unconstitutional. Anybody else notice how the question regarding inpatient commitment has changed from "Have you ever been "involuntarily" committed into a mental institution?" to "Have you ever been "committed" into a mental institution?" Can you imagine how many people who may have gone through a temporary mental distress who may have sought treatment for that instance who may have gone to their local hospital and asked to be committed for help in the past, who essentially just recently lost their rights to own firearms because that question changed? And the fucked up part about that is, anybody who loses their rights to own or possess firearms because they had to answer yes to the mental health questions, they can't even apply to have their rights restored because federal government offers no Avenue for such a person to do so. And when I think about this, it makes me even that more upset what Joe biden, a former bureaucrat who shares responsibility having been a congressman for these changes in the past, what this man just did for his son Hunter, not only did his double standard bias for his son keep him out of prison, but it essentially preserves Hunter Biden's rights to purchase on and possess firearms legally while so many other responsible and good hearted people lose their rights overnight because of these unconstitutional monsters who keep expanding these infringements. The existing 4473 absolutely needs to go and if there is supposed to be any kind of test to see if a person is trustworthy to purchase and possess a firearm, there needs to be a different more comprehensive test that is proprietary to the person who desires to have the firearm, and the blanket Banning of broad groups of people just because one thing or another might happen to apply to them needs to be put to a stop. We were told we had rights by our founding fathers who helped created this country and our government has no right causing all of this collateral damage on good people who want to exercise their rights. We only get to live once, why the hell should anybody who is genuinely trustworthy have their rights stripped from them and watch everybody else get to enjoy those rights.
The supremacy clause establishes that the constitution of the united states of America is the supreme law of the land it overrides and overrules all other laws. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 Gives each and every individual american citizen the same rights and protection as any other American in any other state. Background checks, licenses/permits are a complete contradiction to article 4 section 2 paragraph 1. 14th amendment section 1 prohibits any state from passing or enforcing any form of law that violates/deprives any American citizens constitutionally protected rights, liberties, privileges, immunities whatsoever period. Therefore all gun laws in the united states are illegal and void. 9th amendment enumeration clause makes it illegal to use the commerce clause enumerated in the constitution to violate the second amendment rights enumerated into the constitution. Therefore all taxation/tax stamps of guns are unconstitutional therefore illegal. Combined with the second amendment shall not be Infringed clause renders all gun laws/weapons (ARMS)laws in the united states illegal and void not legally binding enforceable laws.
Ok, I've posed this question on several channels. When is SCOTUS going to define temporarily? Is 15 years temporary? How about 10 or 5? Until the term is defined, rights are being infringed upon. It seems to me that if you are safe enough to be on the streets, you are safe enough to keep and bare arms.
You cannot segregate the American people into two groups and say one group can exercise a right and the other cannot,to do so is a complete contradictory violation of article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 of the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 Text. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. A right is a privilege/immunity to possess,do,say something. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 does not say may be,might be,it explicitly states "SHALL BE ENTITLED ""TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".
My friend was forbidden from purchasing for admitting himself to a mental health facility 20 years ago. Said he had never been arrested so that’s the only thing they could be holding against him. Seems kinda messed up to me. What should he do?
You are looking at the Grand Jury thing the wrong way. I served on a federal grand jury from 1990 to 1992 in West Palm Beach, Florida. We met every 2 weeks for over 18 months. If you really want to fight the Federal unconstitutional gun and other laws, you need to serve on the grand jury if you are called upon. The grand jurors, up to 23 people decide who gets indicted or not, who goes to trial and who doesn't. Myself and many others, after I taught them a few things about how the law really works realized the prosecutor was just trying to Railroad these people to go to trial with very flimsy evidence if at all. Our grand jury returned many "no true bills" to the Magistrate. The prosecutor was just trying to put notches on her belt and did not care about anything else. It's people like you who don't want to serve on a jury that causes good people to get railroaded, not get a fair shake, go to trial and go to prison. If you call yourself a 2A supporter and a constitutionalist don't try to shirk your duty. If you really want to fight the system you have to work within the system against them. I'm proud of doing that.
Yet we need constitution supporting attorneys; those willing to combat illegitimate &/ conflicting precedents. As there are many: Terry v Ohio's - R.A.S. ruling being one of great detriment relative to the freedom & liberty of we the ppl.
Pretty sure life long prohibition, even if you committed a violent crime, is unconstitutional once you've served your sentence. Controversial maybe, but your rights don't disappear just because you're a bad person. And especially the current standard which is purely about potential time based sentencing, regardless of the type of crime, is definitely unconstitutional. But of course this is also why we have a system in place to allow you to regain your rights, sadly it's defunct (thanks, Schumer! Maybe do a video on that?), and need to be re-funded and maybe even made automatic after a number of years with no criminal event. Don't get me wrong, I still think having to ask for your rights back is unconstitutional, but let's embrace incrementalism.
Imagine if you had to fill out a form to purchase a screwdriver. Buying a firearm shouldn’t be any different than that. In fact it should be easier than buying a screwdriver because having a firearm is a RIGHT!!!!!!!!!
There are a lot of constitutional problems with the 4473. For instance, what do my race, ethnicity, physical attributes and/or sexual orientation have to do with purchasing a firearm? This type of question isn't even allowed on a rental agreement anymore.
“A secret ballot- vote- equals a secret government “, Lysander Spooner,1867, what do you expect. Hilarious. “A Letter to Senator Bayard “, 1882, Lysander Spooner. Good luck!
Kurt?, Would you please consider putting forward everyone contact their Rep/Congressman to put forward “For someone’s RIGHT (God given/inalienable)to be taken even temporarily, due to ANY Felony conviction, 1. Violence AND 2. An AFFIRMATIVE FINDING of a WEAPON being involved are MANDATORY to the removal of this RIGHT?
DAMMIT!!! Caught the last 5 seconds. brb Well... You are a 'stop and ID' state. So I see the indictment stubbornness. 4473s? I don't know what to say. Samnang doesn't have a store. He has a boat.
Incarcerated yes, indictment no still unconstitutional in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 second amendment,14th amendment section 1 combined.
While I don't necessarily disagree with the title statement, I feel it is a necessity to keep firearms out of the hands of certain individuals. I know of no better way than a background check. If the guy down the street was a known hothead with a proven history of violence would you be ok selling him a weapon?
@thefreebird413 Don't get me wrong, I am a huge supporter of 2A. At the same time I think certain God given rights can be limited due to your actions. Your very freedom to walk down the street can be taken away if you eff up bad enough.
show me where the Constitution says you can have a firearm except for certain people determined by the government? Firearms protect you from the government.
The part I find more interesting is when it asks you your gender. You can check male, female, and other...... Being as other doesn't exist, if I check that does that mean I'm guaranteed to pass the background check because you can't do a background check on something that doesn't exist.
This video was demonitized. Thanks to XS sights for making it possible to do this.
If you would like to catch up with Mark's video:
ua-cam.com/video/iwbKQGR0Er8/v-deo.html
Dang, YT wastes no time.
Murdock VS Pennsylvania , Rights cannot be turned into license
@@VSO_Gun_Channel [Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Date]
To the Members of the United States Congress:
Subject: Re-Evaluating the Gun Control Act of 1968: Restoring Unalienable Rights and Addressing Historical Injustices**
Dear Members of Congress,
I write to you with deep concern regarding the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) and its continued impact on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. While the law was framed as a public safety measure, its foundation and implementation have perpetuated systemic inequities that disproportionately disenfranchise millions of Americans-particularly minorities and economically disadvantaged individuals-from exercising their unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
1. The Second Amendment: A Right the Government Did Not Grant and Cannot Take Away
The Second Amendment protects an inherent, natural right to self-defense and the preservation of liberty. This right, as unalienable as life and liberty, does not originate from government and therefore cannot be justly revoked by it. The GCA violates this principle by stripping over 19 million Americans-the vast majority of whom are non-violent offenders-of their constitutional rights.
The GCA builds upon decades of discriminatory firearm legislation, which were never about public safety but about controlling marginalized groups. These laws ignored the principles of equality and justice enshrined in the Constitution and created a framework for permanent disenfranchisement under the guise of legality.
2. Gun Laws Before 1968: A Racist and Discriminatory Legacy
Prior to 1968, most gun control laws in the United States were explicitly designed to target and disarm Black Americans, Hispanics, and other marginalized communities. Examples include:
• The Black Codes after the Civil War, which explicitly prohibited newly freed Black Americans from owning firearms to prevent self-defense against racial violence.
• Jim Crow-era laws, which used poll taxes, literacy tests, and vague “good moral character” clauses to deny minorities firearm ownership.
• The Mulford Act of 1967, passed in direct response to the Black Panther Party’s lawful open-carry protests. This California law marked a turning point in modern gun control, using public fear of armed Black activists to justify sweeping restrictions.
These laws were not about ensuring safety but about ensuring that certain groups remained powerless and unable to challenge oppression. The GCA, while appearing race-neutral on its surface, perpetuated these discriminatory practices on a national scale, disproportionately impacting Black and Hispanic Americans and poor whites.
3. Law Enforcement Cannot Be Expected to Provide Personal Protection
The need for the Second Amendment is underscored by rulings from this Court, which affirm that law enforcement has no constitutional duty to protect individuals unless they are in custody. Key cases include:
• DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989), where the Court ruled the government has no obligation to shield individuals from private harm.
• Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), which determined police cannot be held accountable for failing to enforce protective orders.
When law enforcement is not obligated to protect individual citizens, the right to self-defense becomes paramount. The Second Amendment exists to empower citizens to fulfill this responsibility, particularly when the government cannot or will not intervene. Yet the GCA and its legacy laws leave millions defenseless, undermining the very purpose of the Second Amendment.
4. The Battle of Athens: A Historic Reminder of the Second Amendment’s Purpose
The Battle of Athens in 1946 demonstrates the necessity of the Second Amendment as a safeguard against government corruption and tyranny. Armed citizens in McMinn County, Tennessee, rose up to protect their community from election fraud and abuse by corrupt officials. This event underscores that the Second Amendment is not merely about self-defense but also about ensuring a government accountable to its people.
The disarmament of millions of Americans under the GCA contradicts this historical lesson, leaving communities vulnerable to abuse, oppression, and systemic injustice.
5. The 13th and 14th Amendments: Rights Circumvented by Design
The 13th Amendment, while abolishing slavery, includes an exception for punishment of crime. This loophole has been weaponized to disproportionately strip minorities of their constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment. Mass incarceration and felony disenfranchisement policies have effectively created a system where rights are denied based on criminal convictions-often rooted in racially biased policing and judicial practices.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause guarantees that all citizens have access to the same rights under the law. Yet the GCA’s implementation disproportionately affects marginalized groups, denying them equal access to the fundamental right of self-defense. This systemic inequity is not only unconstitutional but also deeply unjust.
6. The GCA Fails the Bruen Test
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that firearm regulations must align with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment. The GCA fails this standard:
• No Historical Justification for Felon Disarmament: At the time of the Founding, only those posing an active and immediate danger to society were disarmed-not broad classes of individuals based on prior convictions.
• Modern Overreach: The GCA’s permanent disarmament of felons and reliance on extensive federal oversight have no historical precedent and violate the Second Amendment’s guarantees.
7. A Call for Congressional Action
It is within Congress’s power to correct these injustices and restore the rights of millions of Americans. I respectfully urge you to:
• Reform the Felon Disarmament Provisions of the GCA: Restore Second Amendment rights to non-violent offenders and individuals who have served their sentences, demonstrating rehabilitation and posing no ongoing threat.
• Acknowledge and Address the GCA’s Discriminatory Legacy: Confront the systemic inequities that have perpetuated racial and economic disparities in firearm ownership.
• Affirm the Unalienable Nature of the Second Amendment: Ensure that no law undermines the natural right of self-defense for law-abiding citizens.
Conclusion
The Gun Control Act of 1968 represents an unconstitutional overreach that infringes upon unalienable rights, perpetuates systemic injustices, and leaves millions of Americans defenseless in a society where personal safety is not guaranteed.
The discriminatory history of gun laws in America-from the Black Codes to the Mulford Act to the GCA-demands that we confront and correct these injustices. The lessons of the Battle of Athens in 1946 and today’s inequities remind us of the Second Amendment’s purpose: to safeguard liberty, equality, and personal security.
I urge you to take immediate steps to re-evaluate the GCA and its impact, ensuring that our nation’s laws reflect the values of justice, equality, and liberty for all.
Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
4473 makes you give up your 5th amendment to get your 2nd amendment rights
@MichaelWalters-r5m True. We are all aware that form 4473 is an unlawful infringement as there is no 2nd Amendment requirement for it to keep and bear arms and that it violates due process, right to privacy, and property rights. Form requirements are not Constitutional to exercise any Constitutional right.
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Sell that to the native Americans
That's just a phrase. I don't see it holding any weight today. The only thing that does hold it's weight is fighting back physically
@@mrwayne5158 or buying your way out
Imagine if you had to fill a form out to make a Facebook post or use your fifth amendment rights.
We ARE getting to that point...
@mattfransen1551 I had to purchase the right to travel.
UA-cam is pretty much like that if your comments have certain words or politics in it the bot they made deletes it
You get a facebook?!
Imagine if there was no way to determine if violent offenders can have a firearm?
I've been saying that for some time, that it is also a defacto gun registry
YUP. Made easy by electronic format. 👍
They get to use the systems incorrectly to their benefit, yet we have to use the system correctly, to undo their illegal actions? This is why we have lost so much. They cheat, but we have to play by the rules.
You are able to cheat your just a drill press and a third pin from freedom
Honestly they should ban states from having any say in gun rights just cause of the way states handle gun rights .
A Right cannot be taken or lost
A privilege can
If you are safe enough to be trusted on the streets.. you are safe enough to own and carry a gun for your own protection
Up until 1968 there wasn’t prohibited persons
That's exactly one of the major differences between a right and a privilege. Thank you for pointing it out because so many seem to have forgotten.
Also, taking a license converts the exercise of a right into a privilege. Everyone should think and think some more before taking any license.
Most of our laws are unconstitutional. Virtually every “permit” operation is unconstitutional.
Murdock VS Pennsylvania , Rights cannot be turned into license
@@BeansFrank-l5b From what I've seen on the states law site that only applies to religious stuff and door to door salesmen licenses but i might be missing something or the site could be wrong.
I’m OK with the occasional permit, for example if you want to sell food to the public you should at least have to take a food safety course.
Yes, the 4473 is unconstitutional
I don’t know if the whole 4473 really is unconstitutional or not but I do know some aspects of it with the questions they ask are. Any questions that ask you to potentially self-incriminate yourself, you could argue goes against your 5th amendment right.
@@Everything2Aalso where they ask your race. That should not be a question on there.
@ I agree.
Well… all gun laws are unconstitutional. There was no prohibited persons until 1968
So, tell me why you need to fill out a form to get a gun?
@ you seriously want convicted and released murderers to have legal access to firearms?
Any roadblock to own a firearm is ILLEGAL the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means EXACTLY that.
Also in the 1800s Felons were give a loaded Pistol upon release... The is History and Tradition
But if you are FJB’s son FHB the 4473 is no more then rolling paper.
Of course it's unconstitutional. It asks one to violate his 5th ammendment right.
Just think if we needed a 4473 for the 1st amendment or any other portion in the bill of rights
"Sure you can vote, just fill out this form and-"
"REEEEEEE!"
I've gotten out of 3 jury duties by saying basically the same thing lol
I've feared the 4473 ever since I saw the original Red Dawn.
Glad to hear people are finally figuring that out. If I can't walk in and buy it right then and walk out with it after I pay for it right then without having to sit and wait for some government bureaucrat to decide whether or not I am worthy then the Constitution is being violated up until 1968 my father could walk in any sort of gun so I want that gun lay down his money get the gun and go he didn't have to ask anybody's I was 8 years old at the time and theoretically I could still do it that's so long as my parents approved. Then stinking Democrats and rhinos come along and decide I shouldn't have the rights I had before. I got a good mind to go to the gun shop fill out the form and then turn around and say I want to leave with it now and when I can't file a lawsuit myself.
4473 is unconstitutional but it also a registry for firearms and it's also unconstitutional.
We need better people in the jury pool like you that care about the constitution. This is why some people are in prison because people don’t know the power of the jury.
"Its a right"..... "unless daddy says no"......
Smh
Hey there methadone boy.
The CONSTITUTION is my Permit, COME AT ME BRO
I wonder if Molinowski said that
Hell yes it is unconstitutional as hell. Just take a look at the questions on the background check and how they have evolved over the past decades. I remember what those questions looked like when I turned 18 and started buying firearms back in 2001, and at least up till about a year ago when I bought my last firearm on the books. Those questions keep applying to more and more people and inevitably each time when a question changes or gets added and ends up extending to more people, you will have turned thousands, potentially millions of lifelong responsible gun owners into criminals overnight just for simply owning firearms and people won't even be aware of it until they learn the hard way when they find themselves at least being disarmed and losing Firearms they work hard to pay for simply being discovered for having firearms with no crime being involved, and a lot of people will end up in jail for this. These damn background checks causes more harm than it prevents.
There's a damn reason why our founding fathers said government shall not infringe our rights to keep and bear arms, and that is exactly what government has been doing. If a person does not have a long history of violent background, or if they don't have an extreme mental impairment or longterm history that includes them having openly being a threat to themselves or others, then I don't see any good damn reason to deny a person to have firearms for protection at least. Any other reason is arbitrary and unreasonable and no doubt unconstitutional.
Anybody else notice how the question regarding inpatient commitment has changed from "Have you ever been "involuntarily" committed into a mental institution?" to "Have you ever been "committed" into a mental institution?" Can you imagine how many people who may have gone through a temporary mental distress who may have sought treatment for that instance who may have gone to their local hospital and asked to be committed for help in the past, who essentially just recently lost their rights to own firearms because that question changed? And the fucked up part about that is, anybody who loses their rights to own or possess firearms because they had to answer yes to the mental health questions, they can't even apply to have their rights restored because federal government offers no Avenue for such a person to do so.
And when I think about this, it makes me even that more upset what Joe biden, a former bureaucrat who shares responsibility having been a congressman for these changes in the past, what this man just did for his son Hunter, not only did his double standard bias for his son keep him out of prison, but it essentially preserves Hunter Biden's rights to purchase on and possess firearms legally while so many other responsible and good hearted people lose their rights overnight because of these unconstitutional monsters who keep expanding these infringements.
The existing 4473 absolutely needs to go and if there is supposed to be any kind of test to see if a person is trustworthy to purchase and possess a firearm, there needs to be a different more comprehensive test that is proprietary to the person who desires to have the firearm, and the blanket Banning of broad groups of people just because one thing or another might happen to apply to them needs to be put to a stop. We were told we had rights by our founding fathers who helped created this country and our government has no right causing all of this collateral damage on good people who want to exercise their rights. We only get to live once, why the hell should anybody who is genuinely trustworthy have their rights stripped from them and watch everybody else get to enjoy those rights.
Wasn’t it that 4473 didn’t come into existence into the 90’s
No, it has been in existence since 1968. Look up the Gun Control Act of 1968.
@ still where is history text and traditions. 2A has been around since 1791.
@ plus the Act in 1986 took away select fire from us which is also unconstitutional
Background checks didn't exist until 1993.
ATF didn't illegally unconstitutionally exist until 1974, they were thought up in 1972.
Innocent until proven guilty
The supremacy clause establishes that the constitution of the united states of America is the supreme law of the land it overrides and overrules all other laws.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
Gives each and every individual american citizen the same rights and protection as any other American in any other state. Background checks, licenses/permits are a complete contradiction to article 4 section 2 paragraph 1.
14th amendment section 1 prohibits any state from passing or enforcing any form of law that violates/deprives any American citizens constitutionally protected rights, liberties, privileges, immunities whatsoever period. Therefore all gun laws in the united states are illegal and void.
9th amendment enumeration clause makes it illegal to use the commerce clause enumerated in the constitution to violate the second amendment rights enumerated into the constitution. Therefore all taxation/tax stamps of guns are unconstitutional therefore illegal.
Combined with the second amendment shall not be Infringed clause renders all gun laws/weapons (ARMS)laws in the united states illegal and void not legally binding enforceable laws.
Suppressors shop be classified as an over the counter accessory
I agree background checks for purchases of a firearm should be illegal!!
Cause it’s a constitutional right
Ok, I've posed this question on several channels. When is SCOTUS going to define temporarily?
Is 15 years temporary? How about 10 or 5?
Until the term is defined, rights are being infringed upon.
It seems to me that if you are safe enough to be on the streets, you are safe enough to keep and bare arms.
There is nothing more permanet than a temporary law....
You cannot segregate the American people into two groups and say one group can exercise a right and the other cannot,to do so is a complete contradictory violation of article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 of the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 Text.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
A right is a privilege/immunity to possess,do,say something.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 does not say may be,might be,it explicitly states "SHALL BE ENTITLED ""TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".
Great video, and happy that you're also the smartest person in the room! You and Mark are my top two favorites!
The best way to get out of jury duty is to throw away the summons.
You will be arrested eventually. It's not a good idea.
@commonsence8223 Arrested? 😆 Prove I received it.
@@life_of_riley88 sigh. Good luck with that defense.
My friend was forbidden from purchasing for admitting himself to a mental health facility 20 years ago. Said he had never been arrested so that’s the only thing they could be holding against him. Seems kinda messed up to me. What should he do?
You are looking at the Grand Jury thing the wrong way. I served on a federal grand jury from 1990 to 1992 in West Palm Beach, Florida. We met every 2 weeks for over 18 months. If you really want to fight the Federal unconstitutional gun and other laws, you need to serve on the grand jury if you are called upon. The grand jurors, up to 23 people decide who gets indicted or not, who goes to trial and who doesn't. Myself and many others, after I taught them a few things about how the law really works realized the prosecutor was just trying to Railroad these people to go to trial with very flimsy evidence if at all. Our grand jury returned many "no true bills" to the Magistrate. The prosecutor was just trying to put notches on her belt and did not care about anything else. It's people like you who don't want to serve on a jury that causes good people to get railroaded, not get a fair shake, go to trial and go to prison. If you call yourself a 2A supporter and a constitutionalist don't try to shirk your duty. If you really want to fight the system you have to work within the system against them. I'm proud of doing that.
AMEN
Thank you Curt. Much appreciat the medieval thumbnail. 2 days in a row, no less!
Now that I look closer, it looks like it's Friar Tuck or something. It's perfect either way.
I've never actually read that unconstitutional form, but just filled it out as no. 😂
More of us right-thinking persons need to serve on grand jury as well as serving on trial jury.
Don't become a lawyer, you will NEVER be able to look at the face in the mirror again.
Yet we need constitution supporting attorneys; those willing to combat illegitimate &/ conflicting precedents. As there are many: Terry v Ohio's - R.A.S. ruling being one of great detriment relative to the freedom & liberty of we the ppl.
I just got my felony in possession dismissed a couple days ago based on bruen and being a non violent felon im from laredo tx
Pretty sure life long prohibition, even if you committed a violent crime, is unconstitutional once you've served your sentence. Controversial maybe, but your rights don't disappear just because you're a bad person. And especially the current standard which is purely about potential time based sentencing, regardless of the type of crime, is definitely unconstitutional. But of course this is also why we have a system in place to allow you to regain your rights, sadly it's defunct (thanks, Schumer! Maybe do a video on that?), and need to be re-funded and maybe even made automatic after a number of years with no criminal event. Don't get me wrong, I still think having to ask for your rights back is unconstitutional, but let's embrace incrementalism.
I've said this on like three or four of your videos but I'll say it again. Those stairs in the background look steep as Hell.
If you make any attempt to let them know you understand what jury nullification is.
You won't have to worry about being there long. 😅
Imagine if you had to fill out a form to purchase a screwdriver. Buying a firearm shouldn’t be any different than that. In fact it should be easier than buying a screwdriver because having a firearm is a RIGHT!!!!!!!!!
No Shit Chet...No Shit.
Never sherk jury duty! You can be the only thing between a person being prosecuted for an unconstitutional law or going home.
Not that we should need it, but this is another way to go after "red flag" laws as well
Dan O’Kelly for ATF Director!
There are a lot of constitutional problems with the 4473. For instance, what do my race, ethnicity, physical attributes and/or sexual orientation have to do with purchasing a firearm? This type of question isn't even allowed on a rental agreement anymore.
Heretics!
If you need help fixing your furnace, let me know.
Four boxes is good. He mention the plumbooks, but kept the name of the 5th column obscured
If you aint in jail and walking free, you have the right to obtain a firearm...Its that simple
so the indictment is now being pursued by the Fruit of the Poisonous tree.
Whats the saying? A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.......
“A secret ballot- vote- equals a secret government “, Lysander Spooner,1867, what do you expect. Hilarious. “A Letter to Senator Bayard “, 1882, Lysander Spooner. Good luck!
Kurt?,
Would you please consider putting forward everyone contact their Rep/Congressman to put forward “For someone’s RIGHT (God given/inalienable)to be taken even temporarily, due to ANY Felony conviction, 1. Violence AND 2. An AFFIRMATIVE FINDING of a WEAPON being involved are MANDATORY to the removal of this RIGHT?
DAMMIT!!! Caught the last 5 seconds. brb
Well... You are a 'stop and ID' state. So I see the indictment stubbornness.
4473s? I don't know what to say. Samnang doesn't have a store. He has a boat.
9:25, however, we all know how it should be & that the 4473's wording is so janky it would fail English at the elementary school level
PEPESLAP
I got a guty dury notice once and Ii just told them the truth. I'm racist and if he's black he's guilty.
Incarcerated yes, indictment no still unconstitutional in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 second amendment,14th amendment section 1 combined.
Im a lady lawyer spider -vso
While I don't necessarily disagree with the title statement, I feel it is a necessity to keep firearms out of the hands of certain individuals. I know of no better way than a background check.
If the guy down the street was a known hothead with a proven history of violence would you be ok selling him a weapon?
Does he have less of a right to defend himself than you?
@thefreebird413 Don't get me wrong, I am a huge supporter of 2A. At the same time I think certain God given rights can be limited due to your actions. Your very freedom to walk down the street can be taken away if you eff up bad enough.
All of the logic you used applies directly to Red Flag Laws as well.
408k subs? Yikes
Meow
@@JP-ex9fd right meow?
@@matthewharmon3072 right the eff meow!
Background checks are not unconstitutional. Only someone who can’t legally own a gun would say that.
show me where the Constitution says you can have a firearm except for certain people determined by the government? Firearms protect you from the government.
The part I find more interesting is when it asks you your gender. You can check male, female, and other...... Being as other doesn't exist, if I check that does that mean I'm guaranteed to pass the background check because you can't do a background check on something that doesn't exist.
I hate the background check with a passion.
Unconstitutional is not what I would call it though.