I saw, a whole 100 military trucks heading north on i-5, looks like generators and stuff to build temp head quaters, and lots of armorents and personal. Now why would this be happening right now. This was yesterday around 12:30 pm did I see a caravan passing though i-5 near oregon state lines with a caravan? are they gonna raid gun owning shops who sell fire arms and teach people how to use them too, is america invading america because its the mobsters from the 1960's running the country and nobody seem to regconize thier tactics and evil doings.
We need to realize that leftist socialist civil servants want to reduce Free Americans to LIVESTOCK, They OWN your body, they OWN your rights, they OWN your property, they OWN your children... Every one of these cases violates the 2nd Amendment and also WE THE PEOPLE's natural god given universal human rights to NOT BE SLAVE LIVESTOCK owned by civil servants... at some point they need to remember WE THE PEOPLE are the government, not them. They are the cleaning staff, not Kings, not Masters, not Rulers over U.S.
@@SeaJay_OceansWell Well Well stated brother or Sister, globalist's own the damned politicians and S.C. Judge's by far and large, we're always losing more than we're gaining which is exactly why we draw the line and push back if not renew freedom and liberty from bottom to top, we the people have that power.
(California) "You don't need another can of beans! You already have 10 cans of beans, therefor you are not suffering irreparable harm; you can only buy what we dictate you can buy, and of the quantity that we dictate!"
@@georgeramos1462 These unconstitutional crimes by civil servants should be punished in military tribunals, once convicted of Treason against the Constitution : 10 years in Patriotic Re-Education farm labor camps.
Barrels and other components do wear out. There is a useful service life. At what point does modifying one make it new? Does a car get a new VIN if you replace the engine and axles?
Why are we even entertaining such ridiculous nonsense? Doing so only helps them validate their tyranny, and the only thing we should be pushing for is the complete end to gun control, including machine guns, as well as convicted felons. Shall not be infringed cannot get any clearer.
@@ronarprefect7709 no saying you cant have any is an infringment saying you can have them but not this many is not an infringment you have the gun you practiced your right no where does it say unlimited
@@wolf2966 Maybe to you but some collect because of a hobby or collector. Who are you to determine what people spend there money on? How about they limit everyone to just one home/property? One car, ect....
They want to limit the number of guns of law-abiding citizens. They are utter fools if they think this will limit the number of guns possessed by criminals. Then, they ignore their responsibility to punish criminals for their crimes.
@@bp77-f republicans need to understand this too that the majority of the American people have the right to no feel safe away from individuals who carry guns just for the hell of it it’s clearly not working in Texas where now they run close to first with the most mass shootings this year alone more guns isn’t the answer but nor is less
I own a nice collection of firearms that I have purchased over my lifeyime (50+ years). I have also inherited quite a few from older relatives when they passed away. These firearms are mine, and I will not give up or surrender a single one.
I'm 43 and my father started my collection at the age of 5 with a Marlin .22 Ranger and every birthday and Christmas til I was old enough to buy my own, he got me a new one. I've carried on the tradition every year since.
If the U.S. Supreme Court treated the 2nd Amendment like it does the 1st Amendment, then the vast majority of gun control would be struck down as unconstitutional.
You are correct. Members of the potty mouth party insist that we must buy electric vehicles and rid ourselves of our proven technologies in order to make money for wealthy people in that party. Also, California apparently has new laws that enable the state to take your children if you oppose or disagree with some of the state actions. 81 million votes said that this is exactly what we want.
"Slipping into tyranny is as if being raped or sodomised, compromised, NOT acceptable at any rate"! No warm nor fuzzy. Just ask the victims! I forgot where the aforementioned quote originated.
Any judge violating the second amendment,14th amendment section 1,9th amendment,article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 should be immediately removed from their offices and charged and prosecuted for high treason.
He broke this case down that my non lawyer mind can understand well. Really really analysis and presentation and lively delivery. If i was in law school I would take his class in a heartbeat, he should have his own channel if he has the time and doesn't have one already.
How on earth, did it ever get to a point where any state would think they had the slightest bit of authority to regulate firearms. The 2A doesn’t grant it protects. It is a human rights violation to tell someone that there is any limit to what they can own. This includes fully automatic weapons!
By the way, despite what senile Joe says, you can, in fact, own a muzzle loading cannon, and you can even own an 1880's Gattling gun, the most feared battle field weapon of the 19th century.
Technically, until the 14th Amendment, the States could do whatever they wanted, and did! Part of the reason we have the 14th Amendment, is that the Bill of Rights (specifically the first eight) didn’t apply to State governments… So, that is part of the reason, the Supreme Court still agrees that States have certain rights and can place certain limits on rights protected by say the 1st and 2nd Amendments… I am not saying I agree, just giving you a little history lesson as you asked a question that you would have not asked if you had a proper understanding of our system of jurisprudence!
@@EarlHayward I actually do understand all that. My point is how did we get to a point that states think they have that right at all. When we started, there was a good sized group of our founding fathers who didn’t believe we even needed the Bill of Rights, that freedom was self evident. Perhaps we should have called it the Bill of Restrictions. It doesn’t grant us our rights. It restricts the government. State politicians should understand that they don’t have the right to do this at all. It’s all backwards. Anyone in government SHOULD (I know they don’t) assume they don’t have authority unless it is EXPLICITLY given in the constitution.
This is like your enemy telling you what and how many arms you can have before you go to war with them. 2a is to protect ourselves from our own government.
Wow that’s crazy. No one should be able to tell any one how many firearm they are allowed to own. That’s like tell someone what they can and can’t do with their hard earned money. This is mayor BS.
"The CONSTITUTION shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. " ~Samuel Adams Massachusetts Ratifying Convention 1788
"If circumstances should at any time obligate the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of ARMS who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. " ~Alexander Hamilton Federalist No.28 January 10th 1788
"The CONSTITUTION of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT & DUTY to be at All Times Armed. " ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
@@Able-Manprosecute them on what basis? Vote in who then? Nobody who would do a good job wants to govern over people. Voting for freedom is circular logic. "Oh, i do hope this new master will lengthen my shackles." Good job.
@@opencarry3860Agree! I live on the AZ border with Cali and won’t even travel through that Commie pos state. I won’t visit my family there, go for healthcare or go to the beach. It’s a waste of space. Looking forward to it falling into the sea.
Just as there's nothing in the 2A requiring asking permission to keep and bear arms, there also is not a numerical limit on said arms. But tyrants gonna tyrant...
A young family member went the range with me and my family. She asked “how many guns do you need?” I replied “every single one of them” just like I need every single round of ammunition. It’s better to have and not need than to need and not have.
" The CONSTITUTION shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~Samuel Adams Massachusetts Ratifying Convention 1788
"You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of great violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful, you’re harmless." -Starkgaryen
That was for the Federal government, not States… People seem to forget the Constitutional Amendments didn’t apply to State governments in the 14th Amendment… Up until then, the States had no limites, which is why there were many racial gun laws preventing blacks from owning firearms… Senator Howard made in clear in, I think, 1866 that the protections of the Constitution limiting the Federal government should extend to States to protect people from State government. Makes you appreciate the 14th Amendment even more than the 2nd, at least in my opinion…
Like all the other unconstitutional gun legislation in Washington, Illinois,Oregon and other states, nobody will take a stand and say this is unconstitutional you people can't go violate the second amendment this way,instead the judges drag their heels like they are afraid of the governors and law makers who pass the laws,or they are anti gun liberals who side with them
@@ekatime If only Thomas ran the whole of the court... But we're still a long ways off from reining in the Constitution from the New Deal excesses. So long as the Commerce Clause is perverted the way it is, federal government is essentially unbound.
I am so glad I moved from California to Arizona last year. One of the main reasons I moved was because 3/4 of CA's lawmakers are liberals who think the 2nd amendment should be abolished. I want to encourage the rest of my old CA brothers and sisters to get out now while you still can. The liberal mindset there isn't going to change just because of the Supreme Court's ruling in NY. Trust me, even if some of these current unconstitutional laws are over turned in CA their lawmakers will find new and creative ways to shut down gun rights. And it will take years for those laws to work there way through the courts.
🦝🇺🇲🇺🇲 Born and raised in AMERICA, gave over 12 years in service for my country, all I can say is come and take them, last time I checked there was no limit on how many or what types of guns I could own, far as I am concerned California can fall into the Pacific ocean!!🦝🇺🇲🇺🇲 GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
@@ConservativeCalifornian1032I’ll admit some of y’all ain’t too bad, but tbh, I wouldn’t be surprised if you tried to mimic us (Texas) and try to become your own country
@@Jaballs23 im just a conservative stuck in a liberal state. Texas is basically my dream state but money and family wont allow me to have that luxury unfortunately.
Unfortunately;"The Democratic People's Republic of California" absolutely be falling into the Pacific Ocean,because the next natural disaster of cataclysmic proportions will ensure that it does happen. Just google future world map and go to google images;and you will see Gordon Michael Scallion's future map of North America. His map of what the U.S.A will look like in the future;shows a new tectonic plate boundary forming in Southern Oregon,going all the way through Nevada,and ends in Southern Arizona.The map also shows all of California except for the highest mountain peaks being under water;and this new sea will conver Southern Washington State,almost all of Oregon,Western & Southern Idaho,all of Nevada,western Arizona,almost all of Utah,Northwestern Colorado,and Southern Wyoming.
#1 how do they know how many firearms an individual owns ? ( Registry is illegal) #2 what exactly gives them the right to say how many firearms an individual owns ? I never saw that anywhere in the constitution.
has any plaintiff ever pointed out, that letting any branch of "the government" control the means by which we are able to defend ourselves against a tyranical government, akin to letting the bank robber govern what security measures can be had by the bank?
This is also coming from a state that is telling people in Sanfrisco to leave your car doors unlocked so windows dont get busted and don't leave valuables in it,thats there responce to break ins.i know,unfortunately i moved 50 miles north of Sanfrisco 6 years ago,and hoping to get back to Texas soon,its worse than what yall think out here,self defense is fround on badly. My first 2 weeks out here i caught a guy shoplifting and stopped him at the door,and when the cops arrived they treated me like i was a criminal, they told me i had no right to do that and could possibly face charges, and i couldn't believe it,i said thats exactly whats wrong with this state
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” -Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
"The CONSTITUTION of most of our states ( and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT & DUTY to be at All Times Armed. " ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
" The CONSTITUTION shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. " ~Samuel Adams Massachusetts Ratifying Convention 1788
"If circumstances should at any time obligate the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of ARMS who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. " ~Alexander Hamilton Federalist No.28 January 10th 1788
California: "but if we have to abide by the constitution, we'd have to abide by the constitution!" how can a ruling like Bruen come down when the NFA exists? shouldn't the Bruen decision automatically knock down all firearms laws and if a government has an interest in keeping their law they'd have to make a legal argument for a stay?
The use of the word 'arms' in the Second clearly indicates the plural. No upper limit, but you're insufficiently exercising your rights with only 1 'arm' in your collection.
@@paulis7319 Very true. Having a shotgun, handgun, and rifle all have different potential uses though so owning at least 1 of each is my personal preference
Something else I find absurd about the “unsafe firearms” argument in CA is that law enforcement is allowed to buy and own the “unsafe firearms”. If they are so dangerous how can you have Law Enforcement using them out in public daily? These guns are available in about 47 other states and are safe there, but somehow become “to dangerous” for citizens when they enter California.
Guns aren't safe in any state or country, if they're as easily acceccible as in america. Just the fact that school shootings aren't like couple times in a century thing, shows that ya'll have some crazy problems.
Not saying I agree with the law, but the argument is probably that LEO go through extensive periodic training to use ‘unsafe’ weapons and at least on paper are subject to oversight, however ineffective that oversight may be.
@@randydiabolo Dude... once the cops buy the "unsafe gun", they turn around in 8mo and sell it off privately to other people for a tidy profit since you can only get that particular gun through buying it off an LEO. It is a racket. Look into it.
It's not the state saying "we know better than you" is the state saying we don't want you to be able to challenge us when we roll the militarily armed police down the street to take away the guns you do have and the rest of your rights.
Since the ATF cannot write any laws or really even any rules any such action by them to do either is not constitutional. So any law or rule they are trying to enforce would be a violation
NJ has had a restriction for over a decade limiting handgun permits to 1 every 30 days. That is a defacto limit on the number of handguns one can own. It's gone unchallenged.
@@TheThinker434I know jersey you could theoretically buy 100 rifles, nj compliant of course, at one time, but handgun 1 every 30 days with each individual handgun permit
" The CONSTITUTION of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT & DUTY to be at All Times. " ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
"The CONSTITUTION shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~Samuel Adams Massachusetts Ratifying Convention 1788
"If circumstances should at any time obligate the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of ARMS who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. " ~Alexander Hamilton Federalist No.28 January 10th 1788
"The CONSTITUTION of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT & DUTY to be at All Times Armed." ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
IMO this is where the word "infringe" comes in. It basically comes to "STAY OUT!" To my mind it's telling the state it has no business whatsoever with affecting IN ANY WAY the keeping and bearing of arms. They seem to forget that the 2A does not MERELY affirm the right to keep and bear arms. It says the right MAY NOT BE INFRINGED upon.
The reason Appellate courts don't interfere in a horrible decision is that the court system is configured to draw money from the people to the lawyers and the courts
No… “shall not be infringed” regardless of what any court, at any level (SCOTUS included). The Constitution of The United States supersedes ALL court rulings.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringement is defined as the limitation or undermining of something or the breaking of a legally binding agreement. A limitation.... is a limitation. This is unconstitutional.
The NEXT AMENDMENT THAT SHOULD BE PASSED IS “NO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW SHALL NOT INFRINGE/OVER RIDE/ OR INTERFERE/ OR CONTROL THE 2nd AMENDMENT OR THE CITIZENS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OR LIMIT ANY US CITIZEN.
I remember hearing the police ordered Sigs and afterwards California said Sig had to micro stamp the striker on all new Sigs sold. The price to lazer imprint on each striker made it un affordable to make.
▶FREE Bonuses when you Join USCCA + Free Secret Giveaway: bit.ly/3NxUVg1
I saw, a whole 100 military trucks heading north on i-5, looks like generators and stuff to build temp head quaters, and lots of armorents and personal. Now why would this be happening right now. This was yesterday around 12:30 pm did I see a caravan passing though i-5 near oregon state lines with a caravan? are they gonna raid gun owning shops who sell fire arms and teach people how to use them too, is america invading america because its the mobsters from the 1960's running the country and nobody seem to regconize thier tactics and evil doings.
We need to realize that leftist socialist civil servants want to reduce Free Americans to LIVESTOCK, They OWN your body, they OWN your rights, they OWN your property, they OWN your children... Every one of these cases violates the 2nd Amendment and also WE THE PEOPLE's natural god given universal human rights to NOT BE SLAVE LIVESTOCK owned by civil servants... at some point they need to remember WE THE PEOPLE are the government, not them. They are the cleaning staff, not Kings, not Masters, not Rulers over U.S.
@@SeaJay_OceansWell Well Well stated brother or Sister, globalist's own the damned politicians and S.C. Judge's by far and large, we're always losing more than we're gaining which is exactly why we draw the line and push back if not renew freedom and liberty from bottom to top, we the people have that power.
(California) "You don't need another can of beans! You already have 10 cans of beans, therefor you are not suffering irreparable harm; you can only buy what we dictate you can buy, and of the quantity that we dictate!"
@@georgeramos1462 These unconstitutional crimes by civil servants should be punished in military tribunals, once convicted of Treason against the Constitution : 10 years in Patriotic Re-Education farm labor camps.
Barrels and other components do wear out. There is a useful service life. At what point does modifying one make it new? Does a car get a new VIN if you replace the engine and axles?
TELL EM!
Well in WA state they added parts for a semi-auto in their ban...
The ship of Theseus is supposed to be a thought experiment, not a guidebook to infringe on the people’s ability to exercise their rights😂
Why are we even entertaining such ridiculous nonsense? Doing so only helps them validate their tyranny, and the only thing we should be pushing for is the complete end to gun control, including machine guns, as well as convicted felons. Shall not be infringed cannot get any clearer.
I wasnt expecting you here! Go bring them chocolate rain!
Limiting our fire arms is unconstitutional. 😡
Not really it says you have the right to own not how many besides I’m not fully against this there are better things to spend money on
@@wolf2966 It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Telling me how many I can own is an infringement.
@@ronarprefect7709 no saying you cant have any is an infringment saying you can have them but not this many is not an infringment you have the gun you practiced your right no where does it say unlimited
@@wolf2966 Maybe to you but some collect because of a hobby or collector. Who are you to determine what people spend there money on? How about they limit everyone to just one home/property? One car, ect....
@@wolf2966 The constitution doesn't grant us any rights or permissions at all. It restricts the government from infringing on our rights.
They can limit law abiding citizens to buy guns, but they can't limit the amount of guns that criminals can get
Exactly!!!
Guess I'll be one of those non-violent criminals from now then. Just gotta prove I'm breaking the law.
They are the criminals! They keep you distracted with foreign policies while their reign of domestic terrorism continues everyday here in the USA.
They want to limit the number of guns of law-abiding citizens. They are utter fools if they think this will limit the number of guns possessed by criminals. Then, they ignore their responsibility to punish criminals for their crimes.
They need to limit how many guns they can have.
We don't have a bill of needs, we have a Bill of Rights!
Politicians need to understand this.
@@bp77-f republicans need to understand this too that the majority of the American people have the right to no feel safe away from individuals who carry guns just for the hell of it it’s clearly not working in Texas where now they run close to first with the most mass shootings this year alone more guns isn’t the answer but nor is less
We don't have rights though.
The Supreme court ruled them all to be privileges.
Correction: “had” your bill of rights is irrelevant. It was a Republic if the American people could keep it. The American people failed.
I own a nice collection of firearms that I have purchased over my lifeyime (50+ years). I have also inherited quite a few from older relatives when they passed away. These firearms are mine, and I will not give up or surrender a single one.
I'm 43 and my father started my collection at the age of 5 with a Marlin .22 Ranger and every birthday and Christmas til I was old enough to buy my own, he got me a new one. I've carried on the tradition every year since.
I have a question for you did you get vaccinated?
@@DT-ww4gv what does a vaccination have to do with guns? I'm missing the connection between the two
@@thomasjacobs4919 I will explain as soon as you answer, It's relevant.
@@thomasjacobs4919 sorry that was for Kevin to answer.
If the U.S. Supreme Court treated the 2nd Amendment like it does the 1st Amendment, then the vast majority of gun control would be struck down as unconstitutional.
First it’s guns, then it’s vehicles, then it’s children….
Slipping into tyranny is always soft and warm and fuzzy… At First!
You are correct. Members of the potty mouth party insist that we must buy electric vehicles and rid ourselves of our proven technologies in order to make money for wealthy people in that party. Also, California apparently has new laws that enable the state to take your children if you oppose or disagree with some of the state actions. 81 million votes said that this is exactly what we want.
CA sucks, wouldn't live there if you paid me to.
"Slipping into tyranny is as if being raped or sodomised, compromised, NOT acceptable at any rate"! No warm nor fuzzy. Just ask the victims! I forgot where the aforementioned quote originated.
Any judge violating the second amendment,14th amendment section 1,9th amendment,article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 should be immediately removed from their offices and charged and prosecuted for high treason.
He broke this case down that my non lawyer mind can understand well. Really really analysis and presentation and lively delivery. If i was in law school I would take his class in a heartbeat, he should have his own channel if he has the time and doesn't have one already.
How on earth, did it ever get to a point where any state would think they had the slightest bit of authority to regulate firearms. The 2A doesn’t grant it protects. It is a human rights violation to tell someone that there is any limit to what they can own. This includes fully automatic weapons!
You're awesome ☺️👍
By the way, despite what senile Joe says, you can, in fact, own a muzzle loading cannon, and you can even own an 1880's Gattling gun, the most feared battle field weapon of the 19th century.
We got here thanks to the left..plain and simple
Technically, until the 14th Amendment, the States could do whatever they wanted, and did! Part of the reason we have the 14th Amendment, is that the Bill of Rights (specifically the first eight) didn’t apply to State governments… So, that is part of the reason, the Supreme Court still agrees that States have certain rights and can place certain limits on rights protected by say the 1st and 2nd Amendments… I am not saying I agree, just giving you a little history lesson as you asked a question that you would have not asked if you had a proper understanding of our system of jurisprudence!
@@EarlHayward I actually do understand all that. My point is how did we get to a point that states think they have that right at all. When we started, there was a good sized group of our founding fathers who didn’t believe we even needed the Bill of Rights, that freedom was self evident. Perhaps we should have called it the Bill of Restrictions. It doesn’t grant us our rights. It restricts the government. State politicians should understand that they don’t have the right to do this at all. It’s all backwards. Anyone in government SHOULD (I know they don’t) assume they don’t have authority unless it is EXPLICITLY given in the constitution.
This is like your enemy telling you what and how many arms you can have before you go to war with them. 2a is to protect ourselves from our own government.
This bill really show that we really do need to be able to protect ourselves from our government.
Property does not need to protect itself from it's masters.
Does a cow need a rifle to protect against the farmer?
No, because the cow knows its role.
Ignore this law. Not only does it violate the "shall not be infringed" clause of the second amendment, it also violates your 4th amendment rights.
And article 4 section 2 paragraph 1 of the constitution of the united states of America.
How do you ignore it? The FFL isn’t going to sell you a gun if your inventory is full.
@@randydiabolo, exactly.
@@randydiabolowell at least here in AZ we have private sale without going to an FFL and without an atf form 1. So I guess come on over and get em
@@randydiabolo how would ur ffl know? it violates 2a anyway
the only way they can tell how many guns you have is registration registration leads to confiscation
Wow that’s crazy. No one should be able to tell any one how many firearm they are allowed to own. That’s like tell someone what they can and can’t do with their hard earned money. This is mayor BS.
"The CONSTITUTION shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. "
~Samuel Adams Massachusetts Ratifying Convention 1788
"If circumstances should at any time obligate the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of ARMS who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. "
~Alexander Hamilton Federalist No.28 January 10th 1788
"The CONSTITUTION of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT & DUTY to be at All Times Armed. "
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
It’s the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs. Typical Commie California antics.
Already do... That's why they think they can take it to the next step.
The former attorney general of Massachusetts pulled the same illegal move. Now the former AG is the governor & this madness has to stop.
The states needs to learn what SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means 🇺🇸
@@aniwayassong6183 Bad tasting, but true.
@@aniwayassong6183Sue them, Recall them, IMPEACH them... When all else fails, vote them out of office and PROSECUTE THEM!!!
@@Able-Manprosecute them on what basis? Vote in who then? Nobody who would do a good job wants to govern over people. Voting for freedom is circular logic. "Oh, i do hope this new master will lengthen my shackles." Good job.
AMEN!!!!
@@jdenney Yeah, you're right... We all just might as well roll over onto our bellies, reach back there with both hands AND SPREAD OUR OWN ASSCHEEKS!!!
California is a state that I would never live in
I live in California the only 💩 is from the tyrant governor and the rest of the clueless demm politicians and sheep voters.
Or visit.
@@opencarry3860Agree! I live on the AZ border with Cali and won’t even travel through that Commie pos state. I won’t visit my family there, go for healthcare or go to the beach. It’s a waste of space. Looking forward to it falling into the sea.
I defecate on the land of fruits and nuts
It needs to be nuked stat.
Just as there's nothing in the 2A requiring asking permission to keep and bear arms, there also is not a numerical limit on said arms. But tyrants gonna tyrant...
This is ridiculous and exactly why registration is infringement.
😂..they should limit the ATF!! and thier abuse of thier SUPPOSED AUTHORITY!!
How is telling a federal entity that your buying a weapon bad?
Ask the Branch Davidians or Randy Weaver about that.
@mrprodigy7143 you really can't figure out why???
The 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to bear ARMS , not just a limited number !
A young family member went the range with me and my family. She asked “how many guns do you need?” I replied “every single one of them” just like I need every single round of ammunition. It’s better to have and not need than to need and not have.
I would rather be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war
Amen Patriot
that rule applies to a lot of things.beat up old cars in the driveway not so much.
That kid is going to 1984 style turn you in
Ask her how many shoes she needs!😬
The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed!!!! The People’s Republic of California 🇨🇳
" The CONSTITUTION shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
~Samuel Adams Massachusetts Ratifying Convention 1788
Peaceable and law abiding citizens exist nowhere in the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
"You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of great violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful, you’re harmless."
-Starkgaryen
That was for the Federal government, not States… People seem to forget the Constitutional Amendments didn’t apply to State governments in the 14th Amendment… Up until then, the States had no limites, which is why there were many racial gun laws preventing blacks from owning firearms… Senator Howard made in clear in, I think, 1866 that the protections of the Constitution limiting the Federal government should extend to States to protect people from State government. Makes you appreciate the 14th Amendment even more than the 2nd, at least in my opinion…
Herr Newsome police get to have all kinds of firearms that are illegal for me to have. WTF, how is this fair or legal?
It's unconstitutional and it will not stand up in a court of law
Like all the other unconstitutional gun legislation in Washington, Illinois,Oregon and other states, nobody will take a stand and say this is unconstitutional you people can't go violate the second amendment this way,instead the judges drag their heels like they are afraid of the governors and law makers who pass the laws,or they are anti gun liberals who side with them
I wish you were right. But there is plenty of evidence that the Constitution is no longer a constraint on the powers of government.
Depends who's running that court..... They can do what they want and ignore any laws they want.
You haven’t been paying attention.
@@ekatime If only Thomas ran the whole of the court... But we're still a long ways off from reining in the Constitution from the New Deal excesses. So long as the Commerce Clause is perverted the way it is, federal government is essentially unbound.
I am so glad I moved from California to Arizona last year. One of the main reasons I moved was because 3/4 of CA's lawmakers are liberals who think the 2nd amendment should be abolished. I want to encourage the rest of my old CA brothers and sisters to get out now while you still can. The liberal mindset there isn't going to change just because of the Supreme Court's ruling in NY. Trust me, even if some of these current unconstitutional laws are over turned in CA their lawmakers will find new and creative ways to shut down gun rights. And it will take years for those laws to work there way through the courts.
The right to keep and bear arms is plural and not singular.
@@oldogre5999 yes absolutely. In fact a few years back the courts determined that even tasers are covered under the 2nd Amendment.
I collect firearms from the Great War and WW2 and I have over 45 so far. Its my money and love for history and no one is gonna stop it.
I'm so jealous! I'd love to have a Maxim or Gatling, maybe a Puk cannon.
🦝🇺🇲🇺🇲 Born and raised in AMERICA, gave over 12 years in service for my country, all I can say is come and take them, last time I checked there was no limit on how many or what types of guns I could own, far as I am concerned California can fall into the Pacific ocean!!🦝🇺🇲🇺🇲 GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Hey wtf we’re not all bad. We’re just stuck in a bad state. Still have a gun though. Im not dying over some politicians and the general public.
Hooah, California officials are domestic enemies of the united states of America.
@@ConservativeCalifornian1032I’ll admit some of y’all ain’t too bad, but tbh, I wouldn’t be surprised if you tried to mimic us (Texas) and try to become your own country
@@Jaballs23 im just a conservative stuck in a liberal state. Texas is basically my dream state but money and family wont allow me to have that luxury unfortunately.
Unfortunately;"The Democratic People's Republic of California" absolutely be falling into the Pacific Ocean,because the next natural disaster of cataclysmic proportions will ensure that it does happen.
Just google future world map and go to google images;and you will see Gordon Michael Scallion's future map of North America.
His map of what the U.S.A will look like in the future;shows a new tectonic plate boundary forming in Southern Oregon,going all the way through Nevada,and ends in Southern Arizona.The map also shows all of California except for the highest mountain peaks being under water;and this new sea will conver Southern Washington State,almost all of Oregon,Western & Southern Idaho,all of Nevada,western Arizona,almost all of Utah,Northwestern Colorado,and Southern Wyoming.
They should be more worried about our Country's security and who's comming in than us legal gun owners here !
Good Job Justice Thomas you are a true patriot that’s lives America and it’s people
#1 how do they know how many firearms an individual owns ? ( Registry is illegal)
#2 what exactly gives them the right to say how many firearms an individual owns ?
I never saw that anywhere in the constitution.
has any plaintiff ever pointed out, that letting any branch of "the government" control the means by which we are able to defend ourselves against a tyranical government, akin to letting the bank robber govern what security measures can be had by the bank?
too many dipshits think it's about hunting.
This is also coming from a state that is telling people in Sanfrisco to leave your car doors unlocked so windows dont get busted and don't leave valuables in it,thats there responce to break ins.i know,unfortunately i moved 50 miles north of Sanfrisco 6 years ago,and hoping to get back to Texas soon,its worse than what yall think out here,self defense is fround on badly. My first 2 weeks out here i caught a guy shoplifting and stopped him at the door,and when the cops arrived they treated me like i was a criminal, they told me i had no right to do that and could possibly face charges, and i couldn't believe it,i said thats exactly whats wrong with this state
infringement is illegal and unconstitutional. we the people should be demanding fines, sentencing, and removal from office immediately.
SCOTUS 1876, Shall not be infringed by Congress.
There's no such thing as having too many hand guns. Like Lay's Potato Chips "Betcha can't eat just one"
Shall not be infringed
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” -Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
"The CONSTITUTION of most of our states ( and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT & DUTY to be at All Times Armed. "
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
" The CONSTITUTION shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. "
~Samuel Adams Massachusetts Ratifying Convention 1788
"If circumstances should at any time obligate the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of ARMS who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. "
~Alexander Hamilton Federalist No.28 January 10th 1788
California: "but if we have to abide by the constitution, we'd have to abide by the constitution!"
how can a ruling like Bruen come down when the NFA exists? shouldn't the Bruen decision automatically knock down all firearms laws and if a government has an interest in keeping their law they'd have to make a legal argument for a stay?
You can have as many as you want. The 2nd amendment doesn't have a limit on how many people can have. It says shall not be infringed.
The use of the word 'arms' in the Second clearly indicates the plural. No upper limit, but you're insufficiently exercising your rights with only 1 'arm' in your collection.
@@Bateluer A person with only one gun is usually very proficient with it.
@@paulis7319 Very true. Having a shotgun, handgun, and rifle all have different potential uses though so owning at least 1 of each is my personal preference
@@paulis7319 yes but one gun can't do everything.
Right! These court cases should last 3 minutes with a bench decision.
There should be a law made. It should be FAFO law. This law trumps any law that goes against your constitutional rights.
Need to set a limit on what these lawmakers can earn if they go over that they should pay fines and do jail time.
i dont know if you were kidding but for some reason i felt like that was already a thing and if not we should.
No he's not kidding and we really do need that
Set the limit to the local minimum wage.
Government: you have enough guns.
Me: I'll tell you when I have enough!!
Must be VERY small fine print right after "shall not be infringed" where it sets a limit
we need to put shock collars on these idiots that scream shall not be infringed every time they try to infringe.i think they still wouldnt get it.
I've had enough guns!?...Ok you've had enough taxes!
California: Unless the gun hovers 2ft off the ground when dropped, it is illegal to own it
California Judge: Seems legit.
the bad guys and goverment "can we carry what we want" judge "of course just the peasants cant'
criminals saying "if I need a gun, I'll just take it from you".
*people in California getting ready to go on a boating expedition*
If the witch sinks she's not a witch, if the witch floats she's a witch.
"Shall not Be Infringed"
When will they get that just about every gun law is unconstitutional!
SCOTUS 1876, Shall not be infringed by Congress.
It's kind of like the bully on the playground. They will keep pushing until somebody pushes back hard enough to take away any doubt.
Very beautiful possible's bag. I like it, along with the painting, musket, powder horn. I like black powder guns. I just loathe cleaning them!
Something else I find absurd about the “unsafe firearms” argument in CA is that law enforcement is allowed to buy and own the “unsafe firearms”. If they are so dangerous how can you have Law Enforcement using them out in public daily?
These guns are available in about 47 other states and are safe there, but somehow become “to dangerous” for citizens when they enter California.
Guns aren't safe in any state or country, if they're as easily acceccible as in america. Just the fact that school shootings aren't like couple times in a century thing, shows that ya'll have some crazy problems.
Not saying I agree with the law, but the argument is probably that LEO go through extensive periodic training to use ‘unsafe’ weapons and at least on paper are subject to oversight, however ineffective that oversight may be.
@@randydiabolo Dude... once the cops buy the "unsafe gun", they turn around in 8mo and sell it off privately to other people for a tidy profit since you can only get that particular gun through buying it off an LEO. It is a racket. Look into it.
There is a bill introduced to eliminate the law enforcement exemption
because they have to qualify with it once a year on a static range it magically makes them safe with an unsafe firearm.
It's not the state saying "we know better than you" is the state saying we don't want you to be able to challenge us when we roll the militarily armed police down the street to take away the guns you do have and the rest of your rights.
There were no limits of how many firearmns you could own at the radification in 1791
Ratification, but you're not wrong
Slavery was considered property rights in 1791.
@@JediDrPepper049 irrelevant but nice attempt.
Since the ATF cannot write any laws or really even any rules any such action by them to do either is not constitutional. So any law or rule they are trying to enforce would be a violation
No they can not. They think they can
No one will limit my rights EVER!
Keep pushing!
Maybe we should regulate how many homes and yachts they can have
NJ has had a restriction for over a decade limiting handgun permits to 1 every 30 days. That is a defacto limit on the number of handguns one can own. It's gone unchallenged.
California has a 1-in-30 purchase restriction…
@@TheThinker434for handgun and rifle?
@@TheThinker434I know jersey you could theoretically buy 100 rifles, nj compliant of course, at one time, but handgun 1 every 30 days with each individual handgun permit
@@dr.schmuck3845 yes, handgun or rifle.
Virginia says you can buy one handgun a month unless you pay $50 for a concealed weapons permit
That is OUTRAGEOUS, and blatantly unconstitutional!
The Bill of Rights are the recognized natural and God given rights to the people, not the government.
Be a cold day in hell when I let the government tell me what I can do.
This is why they have NO BUSNIESS knowing what you own
I truly believe there should be a firearms ownership amount.
The limit should be just one more.
One more than I’ll ever need, which all of them.
sometimes I might want more than one more at a time.... what if they are on sale?
🤷♂🤷♂
@@theoverunderthinker - It’s possible……for now.
@@KelzCasa just saying... a limit of "just one more" doesn't always work for me.
😅
The limit should be "a minimum of 3"
Shall not be infringed is a difficult concept for these people.
" The CONSTITUTION of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT & DUTY to be at All Times. "
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
NO STATE IS GOING TO TELL ME OR ANY LAW ABIDING CITIZEN AS TO HOW MANY AND WHAT TYPES OF GUNS THEY CAN OWN
The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. I will be disregarding any such law.
Unacceptable!! Mass non compliance
We only obey laws NOT infringements
If you are still abiding to any federal laws, or even state laws regarding guns
You are 2A'ing wrong
Supreme Court is going to through it out
"The CONSTITUTION shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
~Samuel Adams Massachusetts Ratifying Convention 1788
"If circumstances should at any time obligate the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of ARMS who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. "
~Alexander Hamilton Federalist No.28 January 10th 1788
"The CONSTITUTION of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their RIGHT & DUTY to be at All Times Armed."
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Catwright June 5th 1824
☆PASS EM ON☆
Simply put, the state doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself.
The state needs to remember it works for the people 🤷♂️
Shall not be infringed!
Absolutely fantastic breakdown. Thank you for what you do.
First of all the constitution is absolute and trumps any state laws period!!!!!!!
IMO this is where the word "infringe" comes in. It basically comes to "STAY OUT!" To my mind it's telling the state it has no business whatsoever with affecting IN ANY WAY the keeping and bearing of arms. They seem to forget that the 2A does not MERELY affirm the right to keep and bear arms. It says the right MAY NOT BE INFRINGED upon.
The constitution don’t not say how many guns you can own.
The reason Appellate courts don't interfere in a horrible decision is that the court system is configured to draw money from the people to the lawyers and the courts
any one that disagrees should think again and its not always the bad guys getting locked up/fined and property prettry much stolen from them.
How do states know what and how many you own? Sounds like a registration which is illegal.
They just added 3 new pistols to the roster, 2 are chamber in 22lr from Ruger the other is a 9mm from Franklin Armory.
Franklin got approved in CA? HOW TF did that happen
@@arnauservaux3936 Also the Sig p320 M18 just got approved just in the last few days of July 2023.
No… “shall not be infringed” regardless of what any court, at any level (SCOTUS included). The Constitution of The United States supersedes ALL court rulings.
Ah well, California is off is rocker and wipes is rear with the constitution.
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.
How is microstamping a safety feature? (hint: it's not)
State-Why do you need all those guns?
Me - Why do dogs lick themselves?
It’s because they CAN!
absurd logic and reasoning.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
SCOTUS 1876, Shall not be infringed by Congress.
The constitution is the Supreme law of the land. No states have no rights to supercede the constitution
the fact that barely any guns have been approved in nearly 10 years due to a law requiring technology that doesn't exist is absolutely insane.
As long as we have ammo, one is all that is needed!
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TODAY, TOMORROW AND FOREVER!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Infringement is defined as the limitation or undermining of something or the breaking of a legally binding agreement.
A limitation.... is a limitation. This is unconstitutional.
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.THE ONLY THING THAT LIMITS ME IS I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE ROOM TO KEEP THEM😂
The point is , they want to tell everyone when to eat. And when to take turns to breath.
Without a registry, they have no idea how many guns you have.
They don't want you to arm your neighbor, arm your friends.
The NEXT AMENDMENT THAT SHOULD BE PASSED IS “NO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW SHALL NOT INFRINGE/OVER RIDE/ OR INTERFERE/ OR CONTROL THE 2nd AMENDMENT OR THE CITIZENS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OR LIMIT ANY US CITIZEN.
State has no business tell anybody how many guns you can buy no business period .
We need to restrict what these lawmakers make. Put THEM on minimum wage. Let them make 7.25 an hr. Why is this NOT implemented?
How are they going to know. They going to come check? I DONT THINK SO
Shall not infringe....if this can't be understood then it's time to enforce the understanding.
If the government can't infringe on the 2nd amendment what makes the state think they can?
I remember hearing the police ordered Sigs and afterwards California said Sig had to micro stamp the striker on all new Sigs sold. The price to lazer imprint on each striker made it un affordable to make.