Why Did President Biden DEFUND The AFT?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Visit Viktos:
arfcom.co/viktos
Visit TNVC:
arfcom.co/TNVC
Discord:
/ discord
GA Bill Would Make Property Owners Liable For Injuries In Gun-Free Zones
www./ga-bill-would-make-property-owners-liable-for-injuries-in-gun-free-zones/
Free defenseless victim zone sticker
www.njoag.gov/...
Convicted felons have Second Amendment right to own guns, Louisville judge rules
www.wdrb.com/i...
Illegal aliens have 2A rights
storage.courtl...
www.ntd.com/il...
Biden DEFUNDS the ATF
www.gunowners....
The Constitution makes a very clear delineation by the usage of words in describing people. Reread the constitution and note where "people" is used verses "citizen". As for non-citizens owning firearms, I will say this much. Amendment 2 Right to Bear Arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [Ratified 12/15/1791]
By the court decision in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez -In this case, "the people” refers to those “persons who are part of a national community,” or who have “substantial connections” to the United States.
By the court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. -Heller also said that “the people” “refers to all members of the political community.”
Unfortunately, these two cases are in tension with one another and have not been resolved. I would take the point of view that "the people" in the Bill of Rights refers to all people regardless of citizenship status. Where the framers wanted specific controls, they switched the language to "citizen". In the Bill of Rights: Amendments 1-10 refer to "the people". Amendment 11 is the first reference to citizens. Another example would be in article 2, section 1, where the use of "citizen" is pronounced. I would also argue that, "the people", includes all ages. The checks and balances that were built into our system of government are the punishments for abuse, not the use of your God-given rights. I say enjoy your God-given right and use it wisely.
In Pennsylvania's constitution is says citizens. And their constitution was ratified 4 years before the US constitution's 2nd amendment.
FYI, both noncitizen immigrants, ie green card holders, and non-immigrant aliens, eg TN or H-1B visa holders, can legally purchase and possess firearms provided they’re not disqualified for any other reason and meet certain conditions if required.
Illegals cannot vote, hold US office, nor wield military authority, they are not part of the political body.
Unfortunately, for you logic the constitution lays out what rights illegals have and the right to arms is not one of them. The preamble also states who these rights are for and illegals are not listed. Hence, This is why it has been illegal for citizens to sell arms to non citizens from almost the beginning of our founding and to this day it is illegal. Besides the term militia means citizen soldier. so there is the first mention of citizen on the bill of rights.
@@kevinriffey9970 lol it’s not illegal for citizens to sell firearms to noncitizens. Green card holders and non-immigrant aliens who fall under a few exceptions can legally purchase and possess firearms. Ask me how I know.
I don't want them defunded, i want them disbanded.
This is the way.
Sue to strike down the GCA and NFA. No more AFT.
Nothing else matters.
As well as I do to, for now I will take this as a win
I agree it should be disbanded, but defunded is a good start.
I would also argue that if a jurisdiction attempts to ban firearms, that they should be fully liable for every crime that occurs there.
Having a firearm,
After the government says you can't carry,
Is one of the most American things,
I can think of.
Talking with my Mother-in-Law today, I said it's not only my right, but my duty as an American to question and challenge governments' authority. That's how this all got started.
@@bikerbobcat Agreed.
It's a right,
And a
Responsibility.
The Constitution is law,
As far as I'm concerned.
The 2nd Amendments verbage is
Defend against all enemies
Foreign and domestic.
The spirit of the law is
The spirit of liberty.
@@bikerbobcatwe better pass this onto our children. They know damn well they can’t take ours. They are just waiting for us to die off while conditioning the youth for their future aspirations.
@@sway696 Each generation has gotten more and more tolerant, that's how we ended up with the current regime and agenda. However we are seeing a resurgence of traditional values and resistance to our governing bodies, which leads me to believe that it may happen again. It only takes 1 or 2 sensible speaking people to undo the brainwashing of millions, that is why they work so tirelessly to censor those few voices. So long as we have at least 1-2 people who believe the truth, I believe there will always be this resurgence. In other words, we should be good, I trust the next generation to eventually come to their senses. I was EXTREMELY liberal minded in my youth, but I've come right/center since then. It just takes time and experience.
Black powder with those little conversions are nice too.
I hate the ruling because the government would absolutely let an illegal remain armed even after committing a crime while passing new rules/laws daily to make you and me felons to deny us our 2A rights.
Fun Fact: the budget for the ATF FY 2022 was $1.4 billion. With a B.
This cut is nothing.
The original "cut" was only 7%. Nope. Not a cut at all. It's BS. Eliminate the ATF altogether.
It’s still a win albeit a very small one.
10% gone is huge ya dumbo
That kid in the moment on ZEN could take off a pistol slide faster than the AFT expert 🤣🤣
It's a shame, because the government does have employees (like me) who can disassemble a weapon quickly....they just aren't in that department
So the US government just verified that we had the right to keep and bear arms.😂
They don't have the right to vote in our elections either. We the people of the USA have the right of the second amendment to protect our country with arms. Would you argue that a foreign army could come into the USA with weapons on a "peace keeping" mission?
Voting isn't a right. Would you argue the federal government has the authority to ban illegals from praying the rosary?
@@ARFCOMNewsStrange how voting rights laws exists.
Strange how they called it the "patriot" act. Voting still isn't a right. It is a privilege afforded only to adult citizens.
All antigun signs should be annotated to,
"NO GUNS ALLOWED
SUE ME"
To which we should reply, "Well, OK!"
People who break into your home aren't convicted of anything either
Correct. And until they are, they still have rights.
@@ARFCOMNews by your logic you shouldn't be able to kill a person (deprive them of their right to life) for breaking into your home because they "haven't been convicted of anything"
@@DerWaidmann_ That's not what he said. The concept of natural law allows for use of force in defense of life, liberty and property, but assuming they end up in jail instead of a body bag, they're still entitled to due process. What's more, the rest of us have a vested interest in seeing those rights protected. If the police violate those rights, then they could very well get off without so much as a fare thee well from the legal system.
@@ARFCOMNewsWhen you criminally invade this or any nation, you put your human right to be free from prison or to be free from being forcibly removed in jeopardy. Your human right to bear arms in self-defense (not to mention to oppose the 'tyrannical' government) is null and void while you are violating the god-given right of a nation to enforce its borders.
@@DerWaidmann_ They are subject to the right of due process and all other rights until they are convicted. Or do you want the police to be judge, jury and executioner.
People crossing into the United States without going through the proper process have committed a crime. Criminals lose most of their rights, right?
Rights are for Americans
Not until they are convicted of a felony. With court appearances out until 2035 then not likely going to happen
Uhmmm.
WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHTS.
I’m thinking that OUR constitution and bill of rights is about CITIZENS.
Maybe I’m wrong🤔
You're not
Deport Deport Deport
Illegals getting legal guns is the lead in for them to vote. Mark those words.
That is exactly what I thought too
No. It's how they intend to trick fudds into supporting UBC.
@@ARFCOMNews oh it can be both!
@@oldjarhead386
They're voting already...
😂😂😂
UBC requires a firearm registration. The exact tool the mustache man used to ☠️ 6 million+
The technical term is Criminal Alien. Not illegal alien.
💯% correct!!!
No. That would be less accurate. Illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor. Over staying a visa is a civil offense. Civil offense is illegal, but not criminal.
@@ARFCOMNews if that were true Texas wouldn't be able to take action against Criminal Aliens as the Supreme Court has ruled. I think background checks are illegal, and Criminal Aliens exist.
@@ARFCOMNews tried answering once. Let's try this again. It is Criminal or the Supreme Court wouldn't let Texas take action. I also believe background checks are illegal and we cannot let the gun grabbers get away with it or all the information they have illegally collected, regardless of your point on immigration and using for background checks.
@@ARFCOMNewsI keep trying to reply and it keeps deleting my reply. If they weren't Criminal Texas wouldn't be able to do anything. Checks are illegal along with the information they have been collecting regardless of boarder issues.
Thanks. I hope this gun free responsibility law goes national.
The right to self protection is a right given to us by God. Defund the government, I want my money back. Hugs and kisses Andrew , Glad your back.
On Felons Voting: If you have had your Voting Rights restored, you should have all the other Rights restored.
If you are safe enough to be on the streets you are safe enough to have ALL your rights.
Voting rights should never be forfeited. The people who make the laws should not have a say in who can vote.
@@Ranthra1 and own anything that exsists and carry it anywhere you can legally be
@@matthewlee9728I don’t think civilians should have Bio Weapons but that’s just my opinion.
I had to file separately to get my voting rights back and then to restore my second amendment rights I just had them restored 3 months ago
The Constitution was written for we the people of THIS country. I have no hesitation in saying that non of our protections apply to people who come here illegally. If the government wants to extend our rights to every criminal who comes across the border without permission then they need to be replaced with people who will protect the citizens.
From the Founders' own mouths, the militia was the citizenry. 14th Amendment codified who 'citizenry' is. _Heller_ codified that it is the citizenry that shall have arms, no others.
So the government just verified that we the people have a right to own guns
😂
Yes.
Of course not! Only illegals! Pay more attention.
No they verified that illegals have the right to bear arms but not the citizens of America.
Illegals and felons with guns........i think I'll stick to Kentucky ballistics, Brandon Herrera, and hell maybe even Hitchcock 45. Definitely going to snooze this channel.
once someone comes to this country Legally, THEN they can prosper in our glory of ALL OF OUR AMENDMENTS. Until then, they do not get to reap the benefits of this Fabulous Country and what we stand for.
Vetting matters .🇺🇸
So rights come from government permission?
@@ARFCOMNewsThe privilege of immigrating to the U.S does.
Lawful permanent residents (not yet citizens) can buy guns. The more rights and privileges we keep giving illegal aliens, the worse the illegal immigration crisis is going to get.
I don't know about it being a basic human right anymore, but definitely a citizen right. Imagine, if you will, millions of unverified foreign nationals flooding across an unsecure border and gaining legal access to firearms.
They flooding into our country is what needs to be stopped.
Because just because an illegal alien hasn't been convicted of a horrible crime in their country that they fled from let's talk about the cannibal gang
While I do agree with you on the felons part... 5:40 though... Last time I check, the Pre-amble still starts with "We the people of the United States..." which is another way of saying "We the *CITIZENS* of the United State..." not "We the human of the United States...." and thus by direct statement, the Constitution is for "Citizens", not illegal aliens and if you feel otherwise, then you you might as well kiss all your guns goodbye because if illegal aliens are afforded Constitutionally protected Rights like you think, then you support allowing them to vote (which is the precedent that the judge is trying to set with this ruling) too and thus the Communist (i.e., Democrats) will get what they want, total authoritarian control and complete destruction of our Constitution and our Republic and either you will bow down and be a good little bootlicker or you will partake in the next civil war that will likely ensue... Be careful with what you ask for as you might just get it.
People keep asking me if I'm black yeah I'm thinking I'm black
Hahahaha. Nice
Hell Yeah?
You are wrong. The 14th amendment states “no citizen shall be deprived…” so your homework and you will learn that this is the amendment that forces all states to honor the constitution. The amendments are specifically for American citizens. I can’t go visit England and demand all English rights that a citizen there would have…
How about this… an army of millions of illegal aliens crosses the US border. They then purchase guns and become a huge standing army hiding in our own country.
You can be a God fearing Patriot, and still have the wisdom to see that arming your enemies is a terrible idea. Don’t give them guns, give them a ride back to Mexico.
Think the illegal alien case is illustrative of a two tiered justice system where the law breaker has protected/privileged status. Do you really think that judge would rule that way for a citizen?
He has the right to arms, he doesn't have the right to flout tyrannical laws we have to live under, because he has a protected status.
But but but .... did he have an FOID card? It's the Republic of Illinois, after all.
Look at this guy. He's upset that the Constitution protected someone.
@@HopeisAnger
Your reasoning doesn't stand the _Bruen_ test, or even the _Atkinson_ test as Coleman applied in the ruling _20-CR-00613-2._ From her mouth, the Commerce clauses of 922(g)(5) were unconstitutional because illegals are people, and being non-violent said illegal wasn't a threat. This reasoning fails on multiple fronts.
First, it is widely understood, from the text-history-tradition from the Founders, who 'the militia' was, and thus the militia is interchangeable with 'the people.' This is important, because only 'the people,' 'the militia,' were given the right to keep and bear arms. This draws a sharp distinction against those who are preemptively barred arms within the United States for they are considered alien to the Constitution. Later, because Democrats have routinely asserted no individual right to bear arms, _Heller_ codified that it was the citizen's militia, for which the Second Amendment guarded, comprised of _citizens,_ not foreigners.
Secondly, there is the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' of the 14th Amendment. Illegals, by their very presence, are an abhorrence to that. They are neither born here, nor naturalized. They, by their very actions, are not subject to our laws as they have refused to enter the country by peaceable and legal means. Again, by their actions they themselves took, they are foreign invaders, not subject to the Constitution, not protected by it either.
Also, the British Loyalist example Coleman used under the _Atkinson_ test relied on the fact that they were allowed to possess firearms despite a prohibition in place. She failed to make the proper correlation that the test was they were 'trustworthy adherents to the law,' i.e. people who would uphold the societal order despite their own beliefs. The British Loyalists were allowed firearms because they upheld the law instead of seeking to rebel against the Revolutionaries. Again, having entered the country illegally, by illicit means, for nefarious purposes, they cannot be said to be 'trustworthy adherents to the law.'
We forgot "fugitive from justice" when creating this right for people here illegally. While not convicted or even arrested, they are fugitives by their very presence inside the country.
It should also be said that a core idea of the nation-state model that worked successfully for centuries is that aliens don't have the same rights as the citizenry. A valid visa was how a foreigner gained, temporary, rights. But we lost the entire idea of outlawed somewhere. Right about when hostis humani generis went out of style, I am sure.
If there is no advantage to having the citizenship, what use is it or the government "granting" it? The 14th says that citizens have privileges and immunities. That implies that non-citizens shouldn't have them. What are they? What distinguishes the citizen from the non-citizen from the alien?
Anything at all?
Illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor. Over staying a visa is a civil offense. By your rationale, anyone who is late paying a parking ticket has no right to read a newspaper, the cops can search their house without a warrant, and the government can literally torture them to death. Because Constitutional rights don't apply to "fugitives".
@@ARFCOMNewsIf you have a warrant you lose your ability to buy a gun and travel across state lines whats your point? Here is the law please read.
Possession of a Firearm While a Fugitive From Justice
Federal law provides for ten categories of persons who are not eligible to purchase or possess a firearm as found in Title 18, United States Code 922(g)(1)-(9), (n).
Under 18 U.S.C. s. 922(g), a person is disqualified from purchasing a firearm or possessing a firearm or ammunition if the person is a “fugitive from justice.”
Federal law also prohibits you from possessing a firearm if you are under indictment or formally charged with any felony crimes while awaiting trial or final disposition.
@@ARFCOMNewsThose people would still be citizens of the U.S and part of “The People”.
Nay nay. They're CRIMINALS!!!!11!!!
Ok time to challenge the NFA and hurry it up people!
Agents of the state shouldn't be trusted with any weapons they don't trust the people with. I ran a background check on them and I'm not comfortable with their history of unprovoked violence.
Ok y'all, that judge just said that we can walk into a ffl business and slap down cash, carry out a new firearm without a y forms / paperwork being filed as well as taking said purchase without any kind of waiting period. This is GREAT!
Background checks are anti 2a. Js
This ruling was about carrying guns, not buying them and it was "as applied" to the defendant so it doesn't really affect anyone else. But it certainly is another example of why the 4473 is illegal.
@@ARFCOMNews
How did he acquire the handgun then?
Steal it?
Borrow it?
Straw purchase?
@@KevinSmith-yh6tl You missed a couple:
Built it himself
Got it as a gift
@@silent9077
Here's one for ya.
A Dem/Socialist
"Activist" gave it to 'em.
Sorry, but its stated, and the Supreme Court has ruled...
Constitutional rights are only for citizens of the United States of America.
Only exception is those here with the proper leagal to be here paperwork.
Which SCOTUS case was that, again? I'll wait.
They'll use this to try and give them voting "rights" as well.
GOA & FPC are great people
As a legal illinois gun owner this is bs. I'd be in jail if I was caught with a legally obtained firearm in chicago, let alone an illegally obtained firearm in Chicago. When you choose to protect a group other than your citizens you become a traitor and should be treated as such.
Why are you standing up for i.a.'s, rolling out the red carpet for them, and asking them to treat the country they entered illegally as if it is their home?
They should have been turned away at the door and if they somehow slipped in then they should be arrested, held in a detention facility while being prosecuted, and then either imprisoned for a length of time determined by the court and then removed from the premises or immediately removed from the premises. That is the proper procedure and is what we did for decades. Only now we have the potato in chief telling them all to come on over and we'll let you right in, all the while disregarding the laws we have on the books.
Also when a crime is committed (depending on what it is) your human rights certainly can be restricted. That should certainly be applicable to INVADING a country. You also have repeatedly said it's only a misdemeanor offense, are we not the side of ideals? That is a seriously bad thing that those i.a.'s do by entering the country, even if it is only a misdemeanor currently it should be a felony. But besides that we have laws that if a firearm is involved in the process of commiting a crime the act of having the firearm is a felony. They are in the process of commiting a crime by entering and remaining within the country iIiegaIIy, it's called B&E as well as trespassing.
It also seems you forgot that the constitutions preamble starts with "We the People of the United States...establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That defines who the people are in "the right of the people" of the second amendment. It is the citizens that the government is being restricted from violating the rights of.
Also you keep saying that voting isn't a right, but as several people have pointed out, it is. They even listed the specific amendments to the constitution, but here's one for ya the 14th it literally says "the right to vote" in section 2. Amendment 19 further sates: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."
Clearly your not taking into account that anything the opposition is supporting needs to be scrutinized and held at arms lengths. Mark my words, they are setting us up for destruction.
I love you Andrew, but I cannot support you or anyone on this stance. Also from the community post you made about it, neither do over 70% of your audience.
Sorry you need to be a citizen because the moment you cross the border illegally you committed a crime
Felony!
@@KenWilson-j1jit’s a federal misdemeanor unless you cross again after being deported.
@@chemistryofquestionablequa6252 It is less than that. For most boarder crossers, it is as little as a $50 civil penalty.
It's a misdemeanor to cross illegally. We normally don't deprive people of their rights for misdemeanors. And we DEFINITELY don't deprive people of their rights without due process of law. So an illegal who hasn't been convicted yet has the right to bear arms. Many illegal aliens did not cross illegally but only overstayed their visas, which is a civil offense. And no, we don't normally deprive people of their rights for failing to signal a lane change, either.
@@RedHuntsman it’s certainly not applied equally.
Hot take, it should not be illegal for non-citizens to own guns in the united states, but being armed while infiltrating the United States, or being armed after having infiltrated the united states should be seen an an act of war. Naturally this would not apply to people who had overstayed a visa or anyone who entered as guests.
The arguments against illegal immigrants from possessing firearms is it is against the law to possess a firearm during the commission of a crime which is a felony.
But illegal boarder crossing is generally not a felony unless you do it after being deported.
Illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor. Over staying a visa is a civil offense. And we don't deny rights to people without due process of law.
@@ARFCOMNewsyes we do. If you get a restraining order you lose your rights to buy a gun and red flag laws exist they "We the people" live under.
@@ARFCOMNews " WE DON'T DENY RIGHTS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS " Where the hell have you been living ? That is not true at all.
And red flag laws are unconstitutional. Wanna guess why?
Because they are not part of the people as in we the people
Gun grabbers also want "the people" in the text of 2A to be as small as possible too.
Really? Is that why the federal government is allowed to torture illegals, search their car without consent, question them without an attorney, and force them to worship idols? Wait, no. They can't. Because the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, Amendments and all the other rights in the Constitution are guaranteed to all PEOPLE under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
Yeah, we patched that with a hotfix in the 1860's. It's called the 13th and 14th amendments, so you da people, me da people, we da people. Nobody i's 3/5ths of a people any more.
Yeah, if we're going to call it a "natural," or "God-given" right, it pretty hypocritical to say some have it, and some don't.
I wonder what other groups of humans you think aren't "The People". Don't bother answering, I know it's everyone different from you.
Excellent demonstration of stripping and assembling a GLOCK! Imagine the expert from ATF on couldn't do that simple thing on CBS is push a pencil in a dark closet somewhere.
To be fair to the fed, he had trouble with the one that had an auto sear installed. He had no trouble with the other one. I don't know, but the procedure might be a little different for one with a giggle switch.
Did he?! I thought he doubled down and increased their budget to $2B
About 10 to 15 years ago I stood with a large group of pro-gun people in the Ohio statehouse and testified in a manner that was initially unpopular. I stated the foreign citizens who were legally in the USA should be able to be issued a Concealed Handgun License. My argument persuaded others and they supported me. A proposed bill that was updating the CHL law was changed to my position.
BUT, note that was for LEGAL aliens, most of whom were working through the process to become citizens and had green cards. 999Phiro, a reply under the pinned comment makes my point better than I can that ILLEGAL aliens should not be extended 2nd Amendment rights nor should we cheer when a leftist judge happens to stumble into a pro-gun ruling.
So, I like that we can disagree and still be on the same side.
I don't thing fellons should immediately get their gun rights restored upon release. I think they should have some rights temporarily restricted during the probationary/ poroll period but that they should be given a path to become full citizens with full rights restored. To be fair though, I also don't think they should have the right to vote during that period either.
I think most of us can agree to a transitional period. But that should really include housing and vocational training.
Sense Oar ship dodge attempt, as UA-cam really hates my federal/state aquarium reform ideas.
But, we could have an evaluation date and panel instead of a release date, make sure they're good to go back into public. For certain cageable activites. Alongside certain training inside the aquariums, such as farming and other how to function in society activeites, rather than just having the fish stare at walls
@TheTinkeringOpinionI agree.
Because they eere released before they were tried. And won't have to report for 7 to 10 years if they do show. Plus why do they get the benifits of a US citizen when they are not. I can't get with you on this one Andrew. But we can still be friends.
Stay strapped, Kings.
Well.. if they came here illegally then they are actively committed a felony...
It’s a federal misdemeanor unless they do it again after being deported.
It's still illegal to commit a misdemeanor while armed.
@@chaoticdeertick7213 nobody’s arguing that, it’s illegal to commit a misdemeanor at all. Also it’s the actual crossing that’s illegal, it’s not illegal to just exist afterwards. So if you were to illegally cross armed it would be felony smuggling of that weapon, but obtaining it afterwards isn’t considered part of a separate crime. It’s possession of a weapon by a prohibited person.
False. Illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor. Over staying a visa is a civil offense.
@@ARFCOMNewsCommitting a misdemeanor armed kinda bumps it up.
I think Eddie Eagle as a school curriculum for all ages from 5 to 15 years old.
You just gave me an idea for vehicle security, I need a "Gun Free Zone" window decal for my car.👌🤣🤣🤣
That's actually genius. Way better idea than the Glock, Gadsden, and punisher skull stickers on a FDE Tacoma. Guaranteed to be a free gun in there when you see it parked outside a bar, sportsball venue, or courthouse.
@@ARFCOMNews 🤣🤣🤣Good thing I drive a Kia.
A Kia with a "gun free zone" sticker is the absolute lowest probability of vehicle break in there could possibly be.
No, the Second amendment would not apply to illegal invaders on US soil. The militia explicitly stated would be a formation of CITIZENS for the protection of the nation.
Please point to the part in the Constitution where it says that only citizens have rights or that only citizens can serve in a militia. Also, service in a militia is not a condition for 2A rights.
All men are created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights. We hold this truth to be self evident.
@@ARFCOMNewspoint to where it says they have the right to vote in our elections.
There is a difference between "the people" and a citizen. "The people" is the phrase used in 2A.
@@ARFCOMNews We the People of the United States
When is enough enough? Hint it was enough 4 years ago now its just overflowing
I live in montana, and if you break and enter an occupied dwelling, we can introduce you directly to Jesus.
I normally dont disagree with Prince Andrew, but America acknowledges that our Rights are God-given rights. We are the only country on Earth that acknowledges this, therefore these rights are for "We the People" of the United States, meaning citizens of this country and within our borders! Any other interpretation of this is so far skewed and twisted in logic that I'll never look at your libertarian hide the same.
Wow!you have me thinking on this one 😂
I thought it was a crime to illegally cross the boarder, ILLEGALLY
It's a misdemeanor to cross illegally. We normally don't deprive people of their rights for misdemeanors. And we DEFINITELY don't deprive people of their rights without due process of law. So an illegal who hasn't been convicted yet has the right to bear arms. Many illegal aliens did not cross illegally but only overstayed their visas, which is a civil offense. And no, we don't normally deprive people of their rights for failing to signal a lane change, either.
It is anywhere from a civil offense with a $50-250 fine to a felony depending on whether it was the first time crossing the boarder of if you were deported and then came back. Do we want gun grabbers to say those people who got a speeding ticket, which is a civil offense, can't have guns?
@@ARFCOMNewsI confused you say they have every right we have in the constitution yet they cant vote in our elections. 2a is about protecting our country not theirs. I am assuming if a army from another country came into the USA on a lets say "peace keeping" mission you would be fine with that.
@@ARFCOMNewsYou should definitely have to become a legal US citizen before you are able to acquire any firearms period. In case you didn't know bro, there's thousands of unvetted people, military age men specifically, coming over our southern border from china, africa, and the middle east. I have to pass a background check before getting a gun. How are you supposed to run a background check on someone from countries unknown? If you entered the counrty illegally, you are not part of We The People. The question is should there be a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants?
@RedHuntsman Worse than that. It would mean anyone who was thought to have maybe parked illegally at some time in the past but wasn't actually issued any citation to be denied their rights. We're talking about denying rights to people without due process for offenses which aren't even felonies in most cases.
I have mixed feelings on this Andrew. If you allow for one right, you allow them all and if you continue to open that door at the pace we’re going then what is the point of having a border or constitution in the first place? Let them vote for who they want and the policy’s they want too. If you’re illegal, you need to leave and leave everything and everyone alone.
Illegal immigrants with pews is possession of gun while committing a crime. Human rights are different case study
What a about a speeding ticket? For most boarder crossers it is no more than a $250 civil fine.
Illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor. Over staying a visa is a civil offense. Unless they had the gun WHILE they were crossing the border, they didn't have it WHILE they committed a crime. And we don't violate people's rights without due process of law. So you can't deny their right to carry a gun until they have been convicted.
@@ARFCOMNewsStill obtained the gun illegally = felony. Thanks for playing.
@@ARFCOMNewsI am not a fan of illegal immigrants coming over the boarder mostly as it denies the folks at the boarder the chance at a basic background check etc. That said I agree that IF they do nothing wrong when they get here including fighting authorities if they LEGALLY detain them then they should be able to be armed. That said if they lie on a 4473 about being in the country illegally when they get their firearm that alone is enough for me to say they again now should get the full Hunter treatment and full court press. So I think it would be a rare but not impossible scenario where someone is A: here illegally and B: has a legal firearm they can be carrying.
As for the concern about armies coming over the boarder armed. That is a valid concern but the way the law currently stands I am not sure how this should be handled. I know I REALLY hate giving up my human rights when I cross over the boarder into the peoples republic of canadia and I have NO intention of causing harm unless someone brings harm to me. This isn't an easy problem to solve.
@@kevinriffey9970Private sales aren’t illegal, yet
You should have put the kid against the ATF guy who couldn’t field strip
Welcome back Andrew!
Holt f***! He's back!
I thought you got popped for a dirty drug test or something.
😂
On a serious note. You're the only one who has made it make some sense for the constitution. However, the constitution applies to Americans. Maybe if we were able to take over other countries...
...but that would get a bit dicey. 😂
False. The Constitution applies to the US government. It outlines what the government is allowed to do and what it is not. It enumerates rights for everyone under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Can the government restrict non-citizens from voting?
Yes. Voting is a privilege conferred upon a specific group of citizens, not a natural right granted by the Creator to all humans and enumerated in the US Constitution for everyone under its authority.
Expect anti-2A states to pass laws giving immunity from law suits to anyone prohibiting guns on private property.
Gun rights are human rights. I love you too.
Their guns have the right to be here. Invaders don't have that right.
@@vashmatrix5769they have gun rights in their own country. The US needs to deport the people here illegally.
@BasedPatriot-USA Bible also speaks of borders & invading armies.
@@vashmatrix5769 Who would Jesus deny protection and care to?
@@bikerbobcat Wolves. What do you think happened to the army with Goliath?
I think your assertion is rather horse shit. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."------- Who are the "people"? It doesn't say "all people" or "All mankind" or "who ever decided to walk across the border" NO, it specifically enumerates "The People" So I'll ask again........ Who are "the people"? Welp we have LIBRARYS FULL of statutory and case law on this very subject. I'll leave you to your own devices to READ. (I suggest you start with the federalist papers) But to summarize "The People" are composed of the Adult Voting Citizenry of our country. Citizenry, IE Citizens, Born, Naturalized, or otherwise are "The People". Minor children, Foreign peoples, Diplomats ect are NOT "the people". A diplomats wife can give birth to a _____ and that child WILL NOT be a natural born citizen of the US.................. EVERY country on the face of the earth draws a distinction between its own citizenry and the "other". EVERY country affords its own citizens with rights and privileges NOT afforded to "others". Now... the US (as with many countries) extends a great many of those privileges but NOT all privileges. Example; you MUST be a natural born Citizen to become POTUS......... Another example; the aforementioned diplomat's wife giving birth to a ____. Normally; with anyone else, that child would become a natural born citizen. NOT so here. Point being: just because the USA traditionally extends many of the privileges afforded citizens. DOES NOT mean they apply universally. Because by the letter of the constitution they DO NOT.
OH and that Illinois judge that said it was unconstitutional, is going to get her ass cheeks clapped. Because she completely ignored the supremacy clause, prior president and SCOTUS ruling/s.
Preach it brother, preach it!
@@JaredaSohn Im tryin, MFers don't wanna listen.....
@@JaredaSohn I'm tryin, but every time I quote the Heller decision where SCOTUS specifically said aliens are not "the people". The bastards keep deleting the comment and link to SCOTUS
@@JaredaSohn Im tryin brother. MFers don't wanna listen. I keep citing the Heller decision where SCOTUS specifically says "the people" "unambiguously" refers to us citizens and the bastards keep deleting the comment and link...................
Theyre illegal.
So many stickers....every where
Who's this Replacement Dude 🤔 It's a Doobily Doo get it Right 😂😂
I just reviewed the tenth amendment, and now I can't find the part in the constitution where it delegates to the federal government the power to outlaw immigration. Please help.
Bunch of racists on both sides just ignored that. Now, the laws have been around so long that most people accept it, same as gun control and such.
had to leave my g19 in the truck today at the county courthouse, their security detail, one 60 year old overweight mexican woman unarmed security guard.
Unacceptable. Government buildings which prohibit arms should have positive entry control, effective screening, and armed, POST certified LEOs on duty. The number of cops should be proportional to the number of people in the building.
So, what about parking lots? Honestly, There are armed security at the doors of most night clubs but have experienced shootings in the parking lots as they can not stop folks from having guns in their cars. They drink, they fight and they shoot each other now days in Atlanta. Its sad. Inside sure I support it but you need to put a exception for the outside and parking lots. FYI - I work in the industry and have experienced the parking lot issues. We pat down and do searched and have armed and unarmed security. We prohibit ALL weapons inside our establishments. As for the parking lots do what you want. BUT with the way people are sue happy its a huge issue. True story had a guy (read as gang member) who was shot by another guy (read as a rival gang member) they were not even in the club and had been turned away at the door. An hour later they had a gun fight in the street near our club. One was shot and ran onto our parking lot while still being shot at. The shooter chased him on to the lot also. We got sued because we should have protected him. True story his lawyer said we should have prevented people from having guns on our property by searching cars and every single person who came onto our property. Keep in mind we won the case BUT these folks are fucking sue happy when they get hurt. And most are not innocents.
You are literally proving the point you are trying to refute.
@@RyanCook-zc9iw Refuting what point exactly? I agree if you ban guns you need to provide security for patrons so I don't really have an issue with a law that says if you post a sign that says no guns inside yes you should be liable if something happens inside that business. Something that I should point out that most night clubs bars and adult entertainment establishment do already have security and screen better than TSA at the door before you come inside. What i am saying is that opening a business/owner up to a law suit based based on not allowing firearms inside is fine if they dont provide security but as a business you legally can not regulate what a person has in their vehicle because after all in the state of Georgia your vehicle is extension of your home and I have no legal right to enter your vehicle in order to verify that you do not have firearms in your vehicleor. Not that I would want too. So, opening a business up to being sued over a person entering into an afray with another person and then taking a firearm out of their car and shooting that person in a businesses parking lot is stupid. that business should not be criminal or civil liable unless there is true negligence involved. Lawyers are way Sue happy anyways. Also signage means absolutely nothing in the state of Georgia. So posting signs means nothing legally speaking would this law change that? What is currently I just ignore no guns allowed signs because they don't mean shit and unless they are searching patrons or have some other means of screening for firearms they never know I have one nor do they need to know.
Show me a common sense gun control law, and I'll show you an unconstitutional arms infringement.
Based.
Well except that the 2nd Amendment explicitly recognizes "the people," which are defined as the citizens under the US, not illegal aliens... though they should be able to have firearms, they themselves are not guaranteed that civil liberty, there is a distinction
The phrase "the people," as found in the Constitution and all its ratified Amendments, has historically referred exclusively to individuals lawfully present within the territory governed by the United States, namely citizens and legal immigrants (holders of green cards, H1B visas, etc.). Illegal aliens are not encompassed within this definition based on textual and historical interpretations.
Regarding penal laws within the US, the scope has been extended to encompass citizens, legal residents, and occasionally even illegal aliens, depending on the specific context of the law provision in question.
While illegal aliens lack a legal basis for the civil liberties guaranteed under the Second Amendment, there may be provisions allowing them to obtain firearms under prescribed steps that may include restrictions or impediments not applicable to citizens. It's notable that the Second Amendment explicitly prohibits the government from infringing upon the firearm rights of American citizens.
It's noteworthy that the clear and concise language of the Second Amendment, recognizing "the people" as the sole entities empowered to determine their firearm preferences and manner of carrying, explicitly excludes the federal government from this authority. "The people" are defined as citizens under the US, not illegal aliens.
While recognizing the distinction between citizens and illegal aliens regarding constitutional rights, considerations for the safety and well-being of illegal aliens, particularly in scenarios like self-defense, remain pertinent. However, any regulations or processes facilitating their access to firearms must adhere to existing laws and regulations, which may include provisions unique to citizens and legal residents.
False. The Constitution does not define "the people" as "citizens". To the contrary, it uses "citizens" in separate context from "the people" and does so intentionally because they are separate groups. Which is why the federal government can't force illegal aliens to worship ba'al, or search their homes without a warrant, torture a confession out of them, or lock them up without a trial.
@@ARFCOMNewspreamble says otherwise. Who are we to force our God's given rights on atheists.
No it doesn't. There is no place in the US Constitution that states, or even implies, that rights are only for citizens.
The concept of natural rights doesn't require a belief in God. I believe in God, therefore I believe my rights were granted by Him. If you don't, that's fine, but you can still believe you were born with inalienable human rights.
Just when you thought every Kentucky jelly joke had been made. 🙄 I ❤U! MmmmmPeach Pie!
What next?
Immigration Lawyer
advertising?
Constitutional rights are for "the people." That means every human. The Constitution doesn't say "citizens" or "non felonious people."
That picture wash Carlos Hathcock.
Taylor will be flogged for this travesty.
I was pretty sure it was Hathcock but I was certain it wasn't Zaitsev.
If the U.S. constitution only _protects_ rights we already have, then sure they can "own" a gun...
However, the constitution applies to U.S. Citizens, because it's not a _WORLD_ doctrine, otherwise it would apply to every country, which it doesn't.
Which means sure, they can _own_ guns, but since they're not *U.S. citizens* they don't have the protection of the U.S. constitution, which means there is nothing stopping the government controlling that, or stopping us from making the possession of guns from *_non-U.S. citizens_* illegal/unconstitutional.
I concur on the legal fact that if you ban something from your property, it is inferred that by you banning said item, you provided an implied or inferred garuntee of protection from that item. Therefore, the burden of responsibility falls to the person or company that has banned that item
We are in areas that are definitely controversial.
Our Constitution protects US citizens.
Illegal aliens are not citizens.
I used to think that once a criminal always a criminal, and that they shouldn't have certain rights.
Today, I think differently.
Once you serve your time, you shouldn't have a record and denial of citizen rights...
whether it's jobs, housing or firearms.
Too funny. That kid did way better than the expert AFT agent. LOL
I would say do not conflate having a Natural Right (the Right to Self Defense all Humans have) with having the Protection of said right afforded to We the People by Our Republics Constitution. They are two separate things a Right (God given ) and a Protection (Limiting Government Infringement). One can exist (the God given Right) without the other (Constitutional Protection) as was the case pre dating the Constitution.
The Constitution was written by We the People for We the People.
It was not written by We the People for All people of the Earth.
While I do believe the World would be a better place if the Protections of the Constitution did apply to All people of the Earth and it's enumerated powers did apply to all Governments of the Earth this is not current reality or fact.
I suppose the left could re-define the words (as they do so often to circumvent limitations) We the People to include All people of the Earth rather than just American Citizens then Our Constitutional Protections would apply to anyone who is currently standing on U.S. soil.
5:32 Sure. Let them bear arms, can't stop them from getting them if they want them badly enough.
It's also going to make self-boog 2 all the bloodier.
That’s an easy answer, he didn’t. Defunding means there funds are gone, he cut budget which is way different. And he missed the budget cut mark by 93%
Can i get a sticker that says,
No illegal immigrants in the United States of America.? Or illegal immigrant free zone?
Just asking is all. But seriously, can i?
Always enjoy your humor almost as much as the information.
Ya know what, I can compromise. Normally a crime committed after breaking and entering can be a felony. Entering the USA illegally is close enough to breaking and entering for me to say it should be a misdemeanor. Someone arrested for B&E would be stripped of their weapons during processing and so would someone falsely claiming asylum to cross the border. They should automatically get a felony if they commit any crime before their court date. That would be a reason to speed up processing but the people who are economic migrants taking advantage of the asylum system need to get out. People in the USA are dying and they need help first before people that came for an opportunity.
But water isn't for 'the poors' right?
Pump the brakes! If he can't be trusted he shouldn't be released? Prison isn't about trust, it's about assigning a debt to a particular crime. After that, you are talking about some arbitrary BS. If you are a VIOLENT felon and committed that crime with a firearm, then you should lose your 2a rights.
So you support releasing violent criminals from prison?
@@ARFCOMNews so if they do something in their youth it's a life sentence? You, in one breath say a debt can be paid, but in the other say it can't. You need to pick one.
Bloodbath OH NO
Is that too insurrectiony?
@@ARFCOMNews YEP, bring on the American made cars and trucks
YES, too easy called and spoke with a friendly woman on the phone who said she would relay the support! :) #MAGA #Trump2024 #ᵘˢᵘˢ
I'm glad to see you got your rights back. Voting rights should never be taken, and second amendment rights should only be lost for people who have been proven to be a danger to others, not for non-violent crimes.
I definitely think there are people who should not have a firearm or a sharp pointy stick for that matter. And yes I do believe that the second amendment should only apply to US citizens. If they'll let you every illegal immigrant that comes across the border buy a gun not only will we have let an army and we will have supplied them with weapons.
I think there are times when individuals need to take their security and safety into their own hands, but that's usually a sign that something larger is going wrong and trying to take it out on a business just because they've asked you to keep your gun locked in your truck seems like an example of a culture war in lieu of seeking a real solution. If the business turns into a war zone just because bad actors find out it's a gun free zone...then you are dealing with deeper problems that can't be solved by security guards or customers open carrying. Plenty of things to complain about as far as nonsensical gun control goes without trying to rope gun-free private and public spaces into the mix.
Serious offer: If you and your crew are passing through the Washington, DC-area, look me up. Lunch on me. This was just the good good news I needed at the end of the day.
The question is…. do immigrants have the same rights? Food for thought. 😊
Citizen/Subject. Being substituted in a state near you.
Pewpew
Most folks show their true colors on that issue and it's not that they're racist, but hardcore statists that don't really care if the government oppresses somebody else but them and their sister/cousin wife.
i dont gave a d4m who carries a firearm it burns my butt that they are tryin to stop veterans from being able to own self defense devices as a prior member of the service it really gets to me and so help the ones that come for em
"Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em." - George Hanson, Easy Rider
Or maybe they think the govt should do their job of enforcing the borders , rather than focusing on making this place more inviting to foreign invaders.
That is bullshit. It is not our governments job to protect the GOD given rights of the worlds immigrants. This is how we end up in forever wars thinking it is our job to protect the world and uphold every ones rights. Our government has recognized OUR GOD given rights as American citizens. It has no legal authority for non citizens. Don't come here illegally and you don't have to worry about it. Spare me the bleeding heart liberal bullshit.
@@chaoticdeertick7213 I prefer dangerous freedom...