In US v Miller (1939), SCOTUS ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2dA because they had no reasonable relationship to militia service. The implication is that firearms having a reasonable relationship to militia service are especially protected by the 2dA. The firearms that should be most protected by the 2dA are those bearable arms used by the military and law enforcement such as machine guns. The determination that sawed off shotguns have no reasonable relationship to militia service is also in error as short barreled shotguns were used by the US military in WW1 and are still being used by the military and law enforcement today.
Yes !! because the 2nd amendment says,"...............a well regulated MILITIA(!!!!).........." It is supposed to be "the people's" force(!!!!) against the government and foreign invaders!!!
And it was the Cases decision at a lower court that reinterpreted the 2A as a collective right rather than individual That's why you still have people arguing that it's the right of a government to defend itself and not the people. Despite the fact it was overturned in Heller
@@alexipestov7002 As well as despite the fact that neither the federal government nor any state government can have rights. Governments have powers, which in the USA are enumerated, defined, and limited by the constitution, whether state or federal. There are no such things as collective rights, only individual human beings possess rights. Anything gained by being part of en exclusive group is a privilege, by definition. (This includes voting, by the way)
I’ve contacted CRPA, GOA, the 2nd Amendment foundation, Michelle and associates and not one has ever called me back. I’m trying to file a lawsuit in federal court and need help. I will pay but I need help !!!
Thank you for supporting the Channel. We would love to get in contact with you. Please call CRPA HQ at 714-992-2772 and leave a message, or please reach out to us via email at contact@crpa.org and we will get back to you as soon as possible. We can receive hundreds of calls a day so leaving a message will go along way.
The militia clause is important for at least one reason. The militia clause indicates that the people have a right to arms particularly suitable for military/militia use including but not limited to pistols, rifles, and shotguns.
Two things, first Bruen doesn't say "in common use for defense" it says "in common use for lawful purposes". I hear this misquoted quite commonly, to our detriment. Second, there was a fully automatic, pneumatic weapon offered for sale to the new United States government by a French company, if memory serves, which was too expensive for the government who then referred the company to several of the richer citizens as potential customers. Obviously "machine guns" weren't prohibited at the founding.
@@WilliamCollins-sh6lm hope so, he has really stood up for what he believes in and he was really railroaded by the government, he and his family sure have my respect
Quit giving up arguments by saying things such as a short barreled shotgun is not a weapon of war. My boot camp USMC drill instructor spent 18 months in Vietnam and carried a sawed off shotgun for most of it. It was the perfect weapon for point on a jungle mission. The second amendment protects weapons of war.
IMO Bruen should be considered each and every time the Second Amendment is involved in a legal ruling. AND it should be PROPERLY considered not just what a judge, prosecutor or anybody elses feelings are. This is a law question/answer not a feelings question/answer
Hey I noticed there has not been a challenge on the basis of 18 USC 922(g) in the sixth circuit. Why doesn't someone bring suit for an injunction to stay prosecution of this on the basis of Bruen, just like Range did? Would it be pointless to do it at this point?
"A Sranding Army, Being necessarily to the security of a free state, The historical Tradition of the government shall not be... You know the thing." Bud Light.
google is playing games. im subscribed to this channel but havent see a motification for months. finally yesterdau i got one them saw that there were several videos that i hadnt seen. so I've been binge watching for the paat two days. sad becaise the content has been top motch!
So can we finally dispense with this "dangerous and unusual"?? ALL guns are dangerous!! And what does the production quantity have to do with our human rights??
@@MikeB-ff6zr Nicols V Newsom has been dragged through courts since 2012 and it has just been denied cert by SCOTUS. Baird V. Bonta is currently back up for review in the 9th...... The CRPA will not get behind any of these 2 cases.
Awesome video, but I could take exception to the statement about restricting (non) bearable arms, when he refers to bombs and warheads, yes I understand that that would be a reasonable restriction, but also don't forget that men owned warships during the time of the Revolutionary War! armed merchant frigates we're equivalent to a battleship of the day and those were privately owned or corporately owned so why would we be restricted from owning similar items today, if Canon could be owned, why couldn't you have anti armor weapons for example? yes I know I'm probably extreme compared to some citizens but just think about history and tradition those things were not regulated until 1934 well after the bruin period mentioned.
The term "law abiding citizen" is not used in the Second Amendment nor anywhere in the Bill of Rights. That is the "TEXT" part of the argument. The term "the people" is not used in all of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. However, longstanding "tradition" has determined that they all apply EQUALLY to "the people" that legally reside in the USA. Otherwise, the various levels of government could create levels or classes of rights which could be used to give special status to those favored by the government. (Which is what, unfortunately, our system has devolved into now.) "The People" simply means those individuals subject to the authority and protection of the U.S. Constitution. If one section, clause, or amendment can be parsed to favor those in a particular "class" or sub-set, then they all can. Show me the regulation, rule, or law in the period during and before (prior to 1792) that prohibited those "people" that were convicted of crimes, served & successfully completed their sentence, and were then released, from "keeping and bearing" arms. So far, NOT ONE of the UA-cam pundits have dared to broach this question. Why? ANY permitting scheme that requires the government's permission to exercise a Constitutional RIGHT is unconstitutional ON ITS FACE. It is a well-established fact that NO level of government may require a permit, license, or tax to exercise a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT .
Need directions to good legal help . In regards to non violent felons . I’ve been to prison twice for felon possession of a firearm. Main case was gross negligence discharge of a firearm in 2015, Which is nonviolent. Then after the fact was arrested and sent to prison for possession by a felon. What can I do ? HELP PLEASE. My recent case was a self defense case that ultimately ended with me in prison still because my nonviolent felon in possession of a firearm . Calvin Sengsavat from Fresno California
Dangerous and unusual should only apply to an arm that is more likely to kill, or seriously injure the user than their intended target. A firearm that is poorly made, has killed or injured the user after a catastrophic failure of the arm to function as designed, or MAYBE an unstable destructive device like a nuke.
I don't believe Rahimi was convicted of domestic abuse it was told he did domestic abuse by a lady if my memory is correct. Here say is not the same as a conviction. I'm not saying thus guy isn't a bad apple but the US Supreme court should look at the facts not here say..
google is playing games. im subscribed to this channel but havent see a motification for months. finally yesterdau i got one them saw that there were several videos that i hadnt seen. so I've been binge watching for the paat two days. sad becaise the content has been top motch!
FREE MEN
* do not ask * PERMISSION
- to bear - ARMS
Which is why they make laws to no longer make you free men.
I’m a new member and appreciate all the CRPA does to defend 2A rights. 🇺🇸
Awesome job on the Amicus Brief! Thanks, CRPA!
Definitely and paying attention Definitely 😮
Keep up the great work CRPA.!
Thank you CRPA!
In US v Miller (1939), SCOTUS ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2dA because they had no reasonable relationship to militia service. The implication is that firearms having a reasonable relationship to militia service are especially protected by the 2dA. The firearms that should be most protected by the 2dA are those bearable arms used by the military and law enforcement such as machine guns. The determination that sawed off shotguns have no reasonable relationship to militia service is also in error as short barreled shotguns were used by the US military in WW1 and are still being used by the military and law enforcement today.
Consent by error...
Makes legalization possible ???
Yes !! because the 2nd amendment says,"...............a well regulated MILITIA(!!!!).........." It is supposed to be "the people's" force(!!!!) against the government and foreign invaders!!!
And it was the Cases decision at a lower court that reinterpreted the 2A as a collective right rather than individual
That's why you still have people arguing that it's the right of a government to defend itself and not the people. Despite the fact it was overturned in Heller
@@alexipestov7002 As well as despite the fact that neither the federal government nor any state government can have rights. Governments have powers, which in the USA are enumerated, defined, and limited by the constitution, whether state or federal. There are no such things as collective rights, only individual human beings possess rights. Anything gained by being part of en exclusive group is a privilege, by definition. (This includes voting, by the way)
There are pictures of Confederate cavalry with short-barrel shotguns.
Blunderbuss' were kept by private and govt shipping.
History and tradition.
I’ve contacted CRPA, GOA, the 2nd Amendment foundation, Michelle and associates and not one has ever called me back. I’m trying to file a lawsuit in federal court and need help. I will pay but I need help !!!
Keep doing it till you get a response or a denial letter and then post it openly and let everyone know what they respond
Thank you for supporting the Channel. We would love to get in contact with you. Please call CRPA HQ at 714-992-2772 and leave a message, or please reach out to us via email at contact@crpa.org and we will get back to you as soon as possible. We can receive hundreds of calls a day so leaving a message will go along way.
@@dawudasha977 How did they do you dirty?
@@jimklemens5018 I'll explain it all as soon as I win my appeal that they left me hanging on.
The militia clause is important for at least one reason.
The militia clause indicates that the people have a right to arms particularly suitable for military/militia use including but not limited to pistols, rifles, and shotguns.
Great job on the A. Brief . Thank you very much.
🇺🇸
Yessir
How about reminding them that in the 1803 ruling in Madison V Marbury they stated that laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
Thank You!
Two things, first Bruen doesn't say "in common use for defense" it says "in common use for lawful purposes". I hear this misquoted quite commonly, to our detriment. Second, there was a fully automatic, pneumatic weapon offered for sale to the new United States government by a French company, if memory serves, which was too expensive for the government who then referred the company to several of the richer citizens as potential customers. Obviously "machine guns" weren't prohibited at the founding.
Neither were cannons, regardless of what Brandon said.
Bruen is milk toast because corruption is a gnarl root.
Kostas had a good reply to a question here but a day later it's deleted.
And free Matt Hoover
His case could easily be the last nail in gun controls coffin !!!
@@WilliamCollins-sh6lm hope so, he has really stood up for what he believes in and he was really railroaded by the government, he and his family sure have my respect
Thank you for this information
Personal defense IS combat
great video,, so glad I subscribed--love
Can you do an update on the California ammo background check? I would really appreciate it. Thanks
These judges that ignore the law are criminals through either intent, or neglect, it doesnt matter which, not following the law makes you a criminal.
Quit giving up arguments by saying things such as a short barreled shotgun is not a weapon of war.
My boot camp USMC drill instructor spent 18 months in Vietnam and carried a sawed off shotgun for most of it. It was the perfect weapon for point on a jungle mission.
The second amendment protects weapons of war.
and, SOEC OPS still uses sawed off shotguns.
@Sean Dees Needs a little Attention guy's 😮
Poopy algorithm ball buster goes Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt
IMO Bruen should be considered each and every time the Second Amendment is involved in a legal ruling. AND it should be PROPERLY considered not just what a judge, prosecutor or anybody elses feelings are. This is a law question/answer not a feelings question/answer
From where and why does all this”Self Defense” criteria come from?
Hey I noticed there has not been a challenge on the basis of 18 USC 922(g) in the sixth circuit. Why doesn't someone bring suit for an injunction to stay prosecution of this on the basis of Bruen, just like Range did? Would it be pointless to do it at this point?
Algorithm buster
will you be posting a link to a pdf of the filed brief?
"A Sranding Army, Being necessarily to the security of a free state, The historical Tradition of the government shall not be... You know the thing."
Bud Light.
google is playing games. im subscribed to this channel but havent see a motification for months. finally yesterdau i got one them saw that there were several videos that i hadnt seen. so I've been binge watching for the paat two days. sad becaise the content has been top motch!
So can we finally dispense with this "dangerous and unusual"?? ALL guns are dangerous!! And what does the production quantity have to do with our human rights??
Why won't the CRPA support open carry legislation in California?
Has an open carry bill been introduced in the Legislature?
@@MikeB-ff6zr Nicols V Newsom has been dragged through courts since 2012 and it has just been denied cert by SCOTUS. Baird V. Bonta is currently back up for review in the 9th...... The CRPA will not get behind any of these 2 cases.
Awesome video, but I could take exception to the statement about restricting (non) bearable arms, when he refers to bombs and warheads, yes I understand that that would be a reasonable restriction, but also don't forget that men owned warships during the time of the Revolutionary War! armed merchant frigates we're equivalent to a battleship of the day and those were privately owned or corporately owned so why would we be restricted from owning similar items today, if Canon could be owned, why couldn't you have anti armor weapons for example? yes I know I'm probably extreme compared to some citizens but just think about history and tradition those things were not regulated until 1934 well after the bruin period mentioned.
The term "law abiding citizen" is not used in the Second Amendment nor anywhere in the Bill of Rights. That is the "TEXT" part of the argument. The term "the people" is not used in all of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. However, longstanding "tradition" has determined that they all apply EQUALLY to "the people" that legally reside in the USA. Otherwise, the various levels of government could create levels or classes of rights which could be used to give special status to those favored by the government. (Which is what, unfortunately, our system has devolved into now.) "The People" simply means those individuals subject to the authority and protection of the U.S. Constitution. If one section, clause, or amendment can be parsed to favor those in a particular "class" or sub-set, then they all can.
Show me the regulation, rule, or law in the period during and before (prior to 1792) that prohibited those "people" that were convicted of crimes, served & successfully completed their sentence, and were then released, from "keeping and bearing" arms. So far, NOT ONE of the UA-cam pundits have dared to broach this question. Why? ANY permitting scheme that requires the government's permission to exercise a Constitutional RIGHT is unconstitutional ON ITS FACE. It is a well-established fact that NO level of government may require a permit, license, or tax to exercise a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
.
Need directions to good legal help . In regards to non violent felons . I’ve been to prison twice for felon possession of a firearm. Main case was gross negligence discharge of a firearm in 2015, Which is nonviolent. Then after the fact was arrested and sent to prison for possession by a felon. What can I do ? HELP PLEASE. My recent case was a self defense case that ultimately ended with me in prison still because my nonviolent felon in possession of a firearm . Calvin Sengsavat from Fresno California
Comment for Algo
Dangerous and unusual should only apply to an arm that is more likely to kill, or seriously injure the user than their intended target. A firearm that is poorly made, has killed or injured the user after a catastrophic failure of the arm to function as designed, or MAYBE an unstable destructive device like a nuke.
Please state what CRPA stands for. I really don' t know california/ Colorado something, something Association?
California Rifle & Pistol Association
They are in bed with some issuing agencies and are actually leaving a lot of their members hanging for monetary gain.
Why don't you support machine gun ownership outside of the NFA?
I don't believe Rahimi was convicted of domestic abuse it was told he did domestic abuse by a lady if my memory is correct.
Here say is not the same as a conviction.
I'm not saying thus guy isn't a bad apple but the US Supreme court should look at the facts not here say..
Algorithm buster
google is playing games. im subscribed to this channel but havent see a motification for months. finally yesterdau i got one them saw that there were several videos that i hadnt seen. so I've been binge watching for the paat two days. sad becaise the content has been top motch!
Algorithm buster
Algorithm buster
Algorithm buster
Algorithm buster
Algorithm buster
Algorithm buster
Algorithm buster