The 7th and the 11th Make Judicial Infamy

First, Royce shreds the Constitutionally-illiterate ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of appeals that claimed that short-barreled rifles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Not being satisfied with that, he then annihilates the ruling of the 11th Circuit court and their wildly moronic ruling that 18-20-year-olds have no right to purchase guns in Florida, which firmly entrenches the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Act of 2018.

Defensive Pistol Fundamentals | Brevard County, Florida | Royce Productions, Inc

Advanced Defensive Pistol | Brevard County, Florida | Royce Productions, Inc

Transcript

COMMERCIAL: Freedom Guns is your local gun store for the Rockledge Cocoa area in Brevard County,
Florida. Stop in and meet Mike and the gang and see the great deals they have on
long guns, hand guns, accessories, ammunition, AR build kits and Liberty safes that
come with free delivery and installation. They're located at 1255 Florida Avenue just
north of Rockledge High School. For more information, check them out at freedom -guns
.com. Tell them you heard about them on the Shooting Straight Radio podcast.

COMMERCIAL: The Gun Site in Merritt Island is your one-stop shop for all of your second
amendment needs. Stop out there and see my friend Steve Kennedy and check out his nine -lane, 25 -yard indoor shooting range. He's got handgun Reynolds galore out there.
If you want to try it before you buy it, the Gun Site in Merritt Island is where
you need to go. Also, he's got a great selection of ammunition, accessories, range
bags. You name it, you'll find it out there at 125 South Banana River Drive in
Merritt Island. Check them out at GunSiteRange.com. Make sure you tell Steve Kennedy that Royce that sent you.

MUSIC/SONG INTRO:
Royce Bartlett is the keeper in the ban of truth we know
Only the facts about the second amendment....(Royce voice-over) "And never ever forget that all gun control laws are nothing less than over an act of aggression against the American people and their rights" Exercise your rights in a safe way,... (Royce-over) "It's stupidity to think that someone
hell bent on violating the law against murder will magically be stopped by a gun
control law!" ♪ Politicians that infringe on our God -given rights ♪ ♪ He calls them
out, he's not here to play ♪ ♪ So turn it on to the end,
crank it up ♪ ♪ Royce Bartlett ♪ And the Shooting Straight show ♪ ♪ Let's go,
let's go ♪
- All right, now you heard the man. He said, "Let's go." So let's go. We're locked
and loaded on the Shooting Straight Radio podcast. This is the program all about
firearms with a heavy emphasis on the second amendment. And I am Royce,
your host, still reeking of gunshot residue, toxic masculinity, and a faint yet oh-so-wildly, tantalizing whiff of the cologne of my people. Hoppes #9!,
you know it. We've got a lot to talk about today as always. It will dive into
that in just a moment. Wanna I first remind you, I have some classes coming up at
the American Police Hall of Fame, Defensive Pistol Fundamentals and Advanced Defensive Pistol. And if you'd like to take any of those classes, there are multiple dates. You can find the links on this episode page, scroll down and either hit the link or copy and paste the link and sign up there. Don't forget to use the discount
code "Shooting Straight" or "Liberty" for a twenty-five dollar discount.

All right. Also, the links to all my sponsors are on each episode page, like the
gun site in Merritt Island, gun shopping indoor range with a great selection of
handguns to rent and try before you buy. Freedom guns and Rockledge for all your
Second Amendment needs in the Rockledge/Cocoa area. Shootingclasses.com,
which is the best instructor business platform out there today. Glover Orndorf and
Flanagan Wealth Management, so you can plan for your future with confidence. Sicario's Gun Shop, which is Brevard County's only staccato stocking dealer. WJS Guns,the outdoor shop, gun store, and training in North Merritt Island controlled JiuJitsu, the best martial arts training Melbourne has to offer. The American Police
Hall of Fame, Museum, Shooting Center, and Training and Counterstrike Tactical,
the best little gun store in Melbourne. Also, feel free to text comments to me to
the podcast page. If you scroll down a little bit, you'll see a "Send Us a Text"
button there or link. Hit that and shoot me a text. I want to receive some text
from a lot of you out there. I'm going to start featuring them on the shooting
straight radio dot buzz sprout dot com website. And if you open that up,
go to shooting straight radio dot buzz sprout dot com. And you'll see at the very
top several different categories. One of them is fan page. Feel free to click on
that and see what others are saying about the shooting straight radio podcast, add
your own comment, and if you want to shout out, make sure you ask for one and
I'll give you one. As promised, in the last episode at the end of it,
I told you we would be talking about the Seventh Circuit and their declaration that
short barreled rifles or from here on out SBRs are unprotected by the Second
amendment. Wow, you know, it's time at the point where it's obvious to me that most judges in this country today are constitutionally illiterate.
I mean, seriously, no, they are. They are constitutionally illiterate. The Constitution
rarely is ever appealed to in their decisions, and too often when it is,
it's used out of context and used erroneously. But I am really worn out with so
many judges who claim to have all this infinite wisdom, not really infinite, but
they have all this wisdom and knowledge concerning jurisprudence, and then they crank out moronic, just absolutely, like I said,
constitutionally dyslexic rulings like, um, like this,
like the seventh circuit. And we'll also be talking about the 11th circuit and how
they shot down the challenge to, um, excuse me, to Florida's 18 to 20 year old,
uh, banning on a purchasing firearms. And we'll talk about that then probably in the second half of the program. But in spite of the clarity rendered in the Bruin
decision, circuit judges are still refusing to use the text and history standard.
And too many of them use only a half -hearted attempt at using the history standard of that. And what they really do is try to find something somewhere throughout the entirety of American history and not just the time around the writing of the Second Amendment. And they try to find something that's analogous to gun control and say, "See, here is an example. Here's the precedent. The Second Amendment doesn't matter. This precedent does. And everything we say from here on out is based on this one precedent." They don't dig any deeper. They don't try to see if it really was a constitutional ruling in the first place, much like the Bruin decision did. And they
just make these moronic, constitutionally illiterate rulings. They like to appear that
they're using the text and history standard. They didn't even claim that they are,
but if you dig a little deep on it, you'll find out they have no freaking idea
what they're talking about when it comes to the Second Amendment. Because if they actually applied the text part of the standard, they would not, they would even need to go anywhere remotely into history to come up with any kind of a reason at all.
I mean, the text of the Second Amendment is very, very, that,
that text written there was not, was not crafted in the minds of the founders in
just a couple of minutes during one of their gatherings of the Continental Congress.
There were decades and literally, listen, decades of wisdom that went into the
crafting of the Second Amendment and the crafting of all of the Bill of Rights.
There was a lot of wisdom poured into them and the wording was so important that they took great pains to say it just right to the point where nobody if they
really look at the text can argue and say gun control is constitutional. There's no
such thing as a constitutional gun control law i .e. disarmament law.
There is no gun control law that can ever be squared to the Second Amendment text.
Period. Open challenge right here right now to anybody, anywhere, anytime to prove me wrong. Hit me up at shooting straight radio show at gmail .com. Shootingstraightradioshow@gmail.com or hit that "send us a text" button on this episode page.
So, the Seventh Circuit was convened to make a ruling on United States of America versus Jamond Rush. That's his last name, Rush. Jamon M.
Rush. And so he is the, uh, the, I guess the defendant in this.
But here's the decision and I I am going to rip this thing into shreds with just
what little bit of redneck constitutional knowledge I have and a smattering of
knowledge about past cases. Okay. Here is the wording put forth in the majority
ruling. Now there was a, I think there was one or two judges that dissent offered
dissent on this ruling and rightfully so. And we'll look at their words in a bit.
But it says background of this case is in August 2022 Mr.
Rush was charged by superseding indictment with one count of possessing an
unregistered firearm. Now possessing a firearm would have been no big deal but it
was unregistered. The state had not been granted their quote unquote "rightful
monetary gain from this and therefore since he didn't pay for the right, he doesn't
have the right." That's really what this boils down to. The United States did not
receive their smattering of pittance and therefore they declared this man to be a
felon. A possession law is crap, by the way. Anyway Back to the ruling.
The unregistered firearm that Rush possessed was an Anderson manufacturing AR -15 rifle
with a seven and a half inch barrel which is a short barreled rifle regulated by
the NFA. Well, I tell you what, when you can square the NFA with the actual text
of the Second Amendment then you might have my attention. Anyway, Rush moved to
dismiss the indictment, arguing that the NFA is unconstitutional under the Supreme
Court's decision in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association Incorporated versus Bruin in
2022. Well, he's absolutely right. There is no way you could square the NFA with
the text and history of the Second Amendment. It is impossible for you to do.
Again, if you wanna challenge me on this and wanna come on the program and
challenge me on this, hit me up shooting straight radio show at gmail .com or hit
the send us a text feature at the just underneath your page you're looking at right
now as you're listening to this. The ruling continues the government opposed the
motion, arguing that the NFA remains constitutional under Bruitt. No, it didn't.
How in the blippity blank can you tell me that the NFA was kept intact somehow?
Maybe it wasn't struck down by the Supreme Court, but it can certainly,
it's certainly open to challenge and a constitutional challenge at that. No,
the NFA was never constitutional. And so it's impossible for it to remain
constitutional. So it says, and that earlier Supreme Court precedent,
United States versus Miller back in 1939, already upheld an analogous NFA regulation
against the Second Amendment challenge. No, it didn't. No, it sure as blippity blank
didn't. The text and history standard in Bruin plainly stated that any analogous
cases must come from the time period in which the Second Amendment was written.
How could the 1939 Miller case, which by the way actually affirmed that the people
have every right to arms of war, we'll get to that a little bit later. But the
night, How could the 1939 Miller case possibly be used as an analogous case?
1939 is 148 freaking years after 1791,
not even remotely contemporary to the Second Amendment. The ruling continues,
the district court agreed with the government, of course. Concluding that Bruin had
no impact on the constitutionality of regulating the receipt or possession of an
unregistered short -barrel rifle. Really? Prove it by the text of the Second
Amendment. Start there. A well -regulated militia, a military force which we the
people were viewed as by the founders being necessary to the security of a free
state. In other words, we are to be the ones that protect it under arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms unless they had really short barrels
shall not be infringed. Yeah, my copy of the Constitution doesn't say that either.
Nothing in there. Arms for war, period. Plain and simple, whether you like it or
not. So if you want to bet on that, um, I will tell you this,
Bruin definitely had an impact and it will have an impact as soon as we mount a
nice enough challenge against it by using the Bruin standard. Of course, getting the
justices of any particular circuit court or Supreme court to actually read things
constitutionally is quite to challenge these days.
I'm kind of curious because if this old Georgia red deck can go through these
decisions and pick them apart cleanly off the bone by simply using the text of the
Second Amendment and my little my smattering of knowledge of history, I'm kind of
curious as to how these judges are not able to align themselves with the supreme
law of the land. Back to the, back to the ruling, the district court held that
Russia's alleged conduct, that is possessing the unregistered short -barreled rifle,
was not covered, listen, by the plain text or the historical understanding of the
Second
our SBRs mentioned. Where in the plain text was the government granted the right to
regulate the arms of the people in any way, shape, or form, especially when the
government was giving a direct prohibition against messing with the right of the
people to keep in bear arms. They said it shall not be infringed. That means it
cannot be delayed. It cannot be hindered or anything else via government fiat,
Okay, so anybody that thinks differently, come on by the house, I'll loan you a
hammer and give you directions to the beach. There's a lot of sand there that you
can go pound, all right? So Mr. Rush then entered a conditional guilty plea,
reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to dismiss. He was
convicted and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. For what? For owning something the
government didn't like. Even though it was covered under the protections of the
Second Amendment, regardless of what these black robe -braying jackass activists may
say, he was covered by the Second Amendment. So Rush now appeals,
the order says, the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss.
Originally passed by Congress in 1934, the NFA, that's the National Firearms Act,
in its early form required that individuals register certain firearms,
including some with short barrels, okay, prior to 1934,
from the pinning of the Second Amendment and, I mean, actually the adoption of the
Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights in one.
How many gun control laws were there in America? How many federal gun control laws
were there? Why is that not an analogous precedent to appeal to?
Oops. So they quote Miller again.
Miller in page seven, blah, blah, blah, all these legal notations about where the
section is found of the NFA provides. It shall be unlawful for any person to
receive or possess a firearm that is not registered to him in the National Firearms
Registration and Transfer Record. All right, show me National Firearms Registration and
Transfer Record in the Second Amendment.
You could look all you want, but you'll never find it. You know why? Because the
founders did not want the government to possess a registry of arms that the people
owned. That's it, period. The current NFA only applies to specified firearms,
including short -barreled rifles. The NFA also establishes Texas,
of course they do, on making and transferring certain firearms, also, again,
including short barreled rifles. Rush argues that it is unconstitutional because it
burdens core conduct protected by the Second Amendment. Well, Mr.
Rush is right. The Second Amendment instructs, and they actually quote the Second
Amendment here, and the irony of this is they cannot see that nowhere in the text
is anything they're talking about even remotely implied. 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. Oh, here's some questions for you. Your
honors, your honors of the second, the seventh, I mean, Seventh Circuit Court,
does a short -barreled rifle fall under the definition of an arm?
Okay, what are arms? Arms are arms for war. Well, absolutely it does.
They fall under the definition of an arm. And I'm going to prove that with modern
facts here in a little bit. Short -barreled rifles do fall under the definition of
an arm, even the agency tasked with continuing the infringements of the NFA,
they carry short barreled rifles. Oops. Well, gee, they must be under the protection
of the Second Amendment or something because all those guys carrying them are
citizens. They are not soldiers. And by the way, all of you out there that wear a
law enforcement badge. Don't you ever speak to me or, or refer to me as a
civilian. You're a freaking civilian too, unless you're in the military forces of the
United States of America. Don't you ever call me a civilian unless you want to
start a big argument because I'm going to throw you one real quick. So the
ruling continues, of course, Like most rights, the rights secured by the Second
Amendment is not limited. You want to freaking bet? Remember what I said from the
quote from Tench Cox back a few episodes ago? We're going to look at that quote
again here in a little bit. "Yes, the unlimited power of the sword," Tench Cox
said, "shall always, as he hoped, would be always in the hands of the people."
poll.
Rush asserts that early Supreme Court precedent, United States vs. Miller, does not
control that and cannot pass constitutional muster under a post -bruin analysis.
Well, Mr. Rush is spot on and apparently he has more litigious sense than the
jackasses that were trying this case. They say we first address the question of
Miller implies, um, any of the, uh, the question of what Miller,
Miller implies. I'm sorry. I misread that. So here's the related question of whether
Miller is incompatible with Bruin and here's their reasoning on this.
United States versus Miller in United States versus Miller, the defendants were
charged with unlawfully transporting an unregistered firearm, a shotgun with a barrel
less than 18 inches in length in interstate commerce in violation of the NFA.
You notice how they had to add the interstate commerce clause on that to the NFA?
You notice that? Well, they did, they had to do it because they knew it was
unconstitutional Otherwise, everything about the NFA is about interstate commerce,
otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to tax that right and those objects out of
people's reach, okay?
They continue after examining early colonial laws that regulated musket lengths,
and here's what they put in here, okay? Listen, very closely. They actually dug up
some regulation from the early militia,
excuse me, dang this pollen, that muskets were not allowed to be less than three
feet, nine inches.
Okay. And you think that that was some sort of an early attempt to regulate barrel
length for the sake of making them less concealable, which is, by the way, the
fallacious reasoning employed in crafting the NFA. The problem back then,
barrel length, was far more important to shot accuracy. It was far more important to
long range efficacy. The Americans were experts at shooting people in the face at
300 freaking yards back then, and they can probably, you know, they could definitely
do it today too. And so therefore, they were not allowed to have a shorter rifle
because it affected their long -distance accuracy. I guess you justices think we don't
go cross -check your crap, do you? The Supreme Court determined that the Second
Amendment does not guarantee a right to possess an unregistered short -barreled
shotgun. Really? Where do you find that in the text? Thus,
Miller upheld the challenged NFA provision. Well,
this is why I've said that bad judicial precedents or what judicially lazy judges,
like the ones who wrote this decision, rely on rather than put their brain power to
work and it actually going back into time and looking at the actual supreme freaking
law before they make their decisions and excuse me Miller actually affirmed as I
said earlier and probably unintentionally that arms for war were the bearable arms
the founders intended for the people and therefore the people have every right to
freaking own them. This actually was also a major contradiction of the NFA's banning
of arms via excessive taxation of machine guns in other war arms,
though also probably unintended. Yeah, the Miller decision was not the win for the
Anti -Second Amendment rights crowd that they like to portray it as. If they really
read it from what it says, the judge is actually affirming that we the people have
every right to arms for freaking war. And that includes short barreled rifles.
Oh Roy short barreled rifles aren't arms for war? You want to bet? I'll prove it
to you in a little bit with some real hard facts because I like to work with
facts and not ethereal suppositions like these judges do. You is that The rule of
law demands that we follow binding Supreme Court precedent. And yet, yeah,
you say that, but yet, Judge, you remove the Bruin logic and the principle from
your decision. Also, by the way, you're full of bull formalizer. If you, as a lower
court justice, realize something is principally unconstitutional during a case you're
hearing, you are not a court, You're not required to adhere to a shaky or false
precedent. You can make up your own freaking mind. It says,
"And the Supreme Court's more recent Second Amendment jurisprudence," that is, Bruin,
"does not reject Miller as Rush suggests, but rather directly engages it." How?
Explain How you say that, explain why you say that. Those two cases dealt with two
very different issues. Miller was a mere possession case, and Bruin was a facially
different case that had to do with the American's general right to keep and bear
arms. And the Bruin decision most certainly did, in principle,
implicitly reject the Miller decision, sir. And now,
of course, they have to throw in the other fallacious standards, which I've addressed
here a couple of episodes back, and I'm going to bring them back into play. Those
standards that are employed ad nauseam throughout the judicial world since Heller and
Bruin. Yeah, the Bruin, uh, It's in their sighting Heller 554 it says quote in
there. What do I like quoting Miller? I don't know, I'm a bunch of legal
gobbledygook. It says for the proposition that prohibiting the carrying of dangerous
and unusual weapons is fairly supported by historical tradition.
No, it wasn't. No, it's not. When any banning of any dangerous weapons.
Most of those were fearsome -edged weapons like the Bowie knife. As for firearms,
no, they did not. You can't come up with one. Not at all. Dangerous and unusual
weapons. Okay, once again, I feel the need to let all of these jackasses in the
judicial realm.
Firearms are dangerous. All firearms, with used and wielded by a human hand,
can kill another human being. That makes them freaking dangerous.
They can wound another human being. They can critically wound a human being and
cripple them for life. They are dangerous, especially when wielded by dangerous hands
like those of federal officers. You're welcome.
Firearms are dangerous morons. If they're not used with respect and if they're used
feloniously and selfishly, they harm other people. If they're used defensively,
they harm other people. But now, how about y 'all prove to us that SBRs are unusual
weapons. How are short barreled rifles unusual, especially when our military is issued
M4 carbines with 14 and a half inch barrels? That's one and a half inches shorter
than the average AR -15. How is it that an SBR is an unusual weapon?
I ask rhetorically, of course, because you guys don't know crap. And I'm not talking
to my audience. I'm talking to the judges that made this idiotic decision. Well, if
that's not enough for you, how about the old Thompson submachine gun from World War
two? They had a 10 and a half inch barrel. Oh, Roy said, though, those aren't in
common use. Well, there's a hunt was 1 .7 million still in existence today.
How do you get? How do you come up with that? Hmm? Oh, how about one of the most
iconic special ops weapon in American history and matter of fact in world history?
And that's the HK MP5, which has an 8 .9 inch barrel.
Well, that's not enough for you. How about one more? Okay. Today's SEAL Team 6 uses
M4 style carbines with 10 and a half inch barrels.
Gee, I guess those short barreled rifles aren't so stinking unusual, are they?
This is why the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are
in common use at the time. Oh, here we go again, the in common use crap again.
I could go back to the Jirrandani air rifle and the Toff repeater and the puckle
gun, which was called the, uh, the first machine gun. Um, well,
show us in the text of the second amendment where those principles exist.
That is dangerous and unusual and in common use. Show me in the second amendment
where it says that at all. Hmm. Just please, how do you square the dangerous and
usual and the in common use at the time fallacies with the second amendment.
Well, let me ask you this then. Does that mean that all curio and relic firearms,
since they're not in common use today, are not covered by the second amendment?
Oops. How about one more last Bruin slap upside the head for the institutionally
ignorant justices on the 7th Circuit. All right? If FBR,
if short barreled rifles are not covered by the Second Amendment, then the ATF
probably would never issue a stamp to a citizen for the privilege of owning one.
Why not ban them out right from the citizenry if they're not covered by the Second
Amendment. Oh my, no, instead you add a tax to them and people have to pay a tax
to own a barrel, a gun with a barrel less than 18 inches long.
I'm sorry, a rifle 16 inches long. The shotguns have to be 18 inches long.
You Cut a quarter inch off your 18 inch barreled shotgun and they will come and
siege your home if necessary. Shoot your wife while she's holding the baby through a
glass door, a sniper will that is, and they'll kill your son and try to kill one
of your friends too like they did to Randy Weaver on Ruby Ridge over a quarter
inch of freaking steel on a shotgun.
My, my, my. How can you sit there and say well here's it? Here's the problem
Judges most of which have zero zero knowledge of firearms and how they work and
Their place in history, but yet they're gonna come out here and make these ignorant
Idiotic rulings and say that short -barreled rifles are not covered by the Second
Amendment. I've already given you multiple modern day analogies there too.
Yes, the 10 and a half inch carbine barrels on the SEAL team and everything else I
just said. But you wanna tell me that I'm not allowed to own a short barreled
rifle because somehow it doesn't square with "the text and history of the Second
Amendment." What do you think that ruling is bad? Why do we come back from the
commercial break? And I'll give you another ruling where here in my home state of
Florida, the 11th Circuit said that 18 to 20 year olds are not allowed to buy any
kind of firearm. Handgun, long gun, shotgun, rifle, anything, nothing and they're
upholding the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Act of 2018. Be right back with more Shooting
Straight.
The
Police Hall of Fame and the United States Law Enforcement Foundation where bold
vision and hope align to create a better tomorrow for all law enforcement and the
communities they serve by strong advocacy, hard and soft skills training and
education, and their many programs of compassion. To learn more, please go to USLEF
.ORG or APHF .ORG. This is your humble host and I am proud and honored to say that
Sicario's Gun Shop is a sponsor of the Shooting Straight Radio podcast. They're up
on North Wickham Road in Melbourne. They are your full -service gun store. They offer
a wide range of firearms, including class 3 and NFA weapons, ammo and accessories,
gun smithing. If you want to buy or trade, head on down to Sicario's Gun Shop.
They also offer transfer service, custom builds. If you need a muzzle device, pinned
and welded, no problem, they can do that too. Coatings, refinishings, cleanings,
survival safety items. Sicario's Gun Shop is your full service gun store in North
Melbourne. They also have a fine selection of gun safes to choose from. Check them
out at sicario'sgunshop .com. Make sure you tell them you heard about them on
shooting straight. Sicario's Gun Shop, where you come first for your second.
Norm's Music Shop, producer and music creator for shooting straight radio podcast.
I can write and record a personalized music track for your audio or video projects.
Do you want a song for a special occasion? I can do that. For more information
contact normsmusicshop @gmail .com.
Let's create your musical identity. - Thank you. Welcome back to the program.
Thank you to the sponsors of the Shooting Straight Radio podcast. We've been talking
about circuit court rejections of the second amendment,
basically. If you really want to boil it all down to it, that's really what it's
all about. That's a bunch of people who claim to be so wise,
injurious prudence. People who spent quite a large number of years in legal school
and everything else to in order to become a judge and yet don't possess the simple
common sense of us regular people.
Yeah, that's really what it boils down to.
Here's an article by Joseph Stern And the title of it is,
and that you can tell by the title that Mark Joseph Stern, that he is also as
constitutionally dyslexic as the rulings made by these courts we've been talking about
today, the 7th and the 11th. The title of it is "A Conservative Giant Just Gave
the Supreme Court Reason to uphold youth gun bans. The only problem with that is
eight to 20 year olds are not considered youth. They're considered adults in every
state within the union. Let's just start, let's dispense with all that crap right
now. So what this has essentially done, this excruciatingly ignorant ruling,
is it raises, in every way, shape,
and form, it essentially raises Florida's statutory age of adulthood to 21,
even though on the books, it's still 18. But according to this court,
what we're about to read, they say, "No, you may not purchase a firearm.
You are not old enough. You are not at But sure enough, as far as we're concerned,
and according to this law passed back in 2018, this knee -jerk reaction to some
little 18 -year -old pile of human excrement who walked into his school with an AR
-15 and shot a bunch of people, because of his actions,
the rest of you are now required to suffer the deprivation of rights.
Well, Well, all of you 18 to 20 year olds here in Florida should mount a class
action lawsuit because you're 18 and you have every right to file a lawsuit. You
know that, right? File a class action lawsuit against the state of Florida for this.
This is exactly what you should do because this is the, again,
use the word deprivation of rights under color of authority by a Florida state
legislature. They essentially stripped the right to acquire firearms from an entire
class of law abiding citizens.
Here's the article.
For several years, the federal judiciary has been racing to strike down laws that
restrict young people's ages 18 to 20 from buying or possessing firearms.
A slew of appeals courts have invalidated such measures, concluding that they violate
the Second Amendment rights of people under 21. No, that is not true.
It's not under 21 because that covers everybody from age one up to age 20.
It's very specific when they say 18 to 20 year olds because 18 is the statutory
definition of an adult. Back to the article. It seemed inevitable that these
decisions would build a consensus that the Supreme Court might embrace until Friday
when a court broke from the pack in a surprise decision. It was surprise all right
because it was based on gobbledygook.
buy an eight to four vote the U .S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last
week. Upheld Florida's law prohibiting 18 to 20 year olds from buying guns.
Oh well here's the kicker people. 18 to 20 year olds can still own guns.
Yes, if someone gives them a firearm they can still own it. They can still keep it
in their vehicle for protection, they can't carry it on their person, but the law,
the statute 790 here, I've read it time and time again here on the air, they have
every right to have one in their vehicle for protection, and they can carry them to
and from hunting.
My, my, my, oh, but you're not allowed to buy one. Why not? If they can own one,
Why can they not purchase one?
Back to the article. Better yet, the court's opinion was authored by Chief Judge
William Pryor, a highly influential George W. Bush appointee. Well,
I thought you said he was a conservative justice. George W. Bush is no conservative.
You're welcome. Pryor's decision is doggedly originalist. No, it's not a meticulous
history lesson. No, it's not that proves the constitutionality of Florida's ban beyond
all reasonable doubt. No, it sure as blippity blank does not. Where in the text of
the second amendment are 18 to 20 year olds forbidden from purchasing firearms,
especially when age 16 was the more common age back in colonial days.
Of course, 16 -year -olds back then were far more mature than 18 -year -olds today,
but I digress. Yeah? How is it that this proved beyond all reasonable doubt with
this meticulous history lesson that was doggedly originalist?
Do y 'all even proofread your articles when you write them there, mister? What's your
name? Stern. Wow. It continues. It might be,
it might just be persuasive enough to convince his ideological allies on the Supreme
court to uphold this lifesaving limit on the right to bear arms.
Really? How and when has it saved lives? You can't call something lifesaving if it
has never saved a life. proved to me that this, you know, restricting 18 year olds
from purchasing firearms has ever saved a life. Well, Royce, what if they had done
that with that young man, that 18 year old down there at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas
High School? If he had not been allowed to buy one, as I recall,
his parents purchased that for him and even if he did purchase it again, I ask
you, how is it that the actions of one maniac are somehow the catalyst to strip
the rights from every other 18 -year -old to 20 -year -old here in the state?
The courts that rejected this reality relied on the fact that in 1791,
states often compelled 18 to 20 -year -olds to join the militia. Wrong, wrong, wrong,
wrong, wrong, wrong. You didn't do your homework before you wrote the article, Mr.
Stern. The age was 18. By the mid 18th century,
militia law of most colonies required that all free males between the ages of 16
and 50 be enlisted. How did you miss that. Surely you came across that in your
studies impending to pin this article. The article continues,
excuse me, which required them to bear arms. Gun rights advocates raised this
argument at the 11th circuit as well, and they had good reason to think they'd
prevail. Yes, they did have good reason. They assumed the court had all had good
common sense. Well, that was their, that was their bad. After all, the court has a
strong majority of Republican appointees. A Republican doesn't mean they're
constitutionalists, by the way. And after an unusually liberal three judge panel
upheld Florida's law in 2023, the full court swept away as decision choosing to
rehear the case on bonk, which means they had all the judges participating in the
decision. Typically a re -hearing en banc indicates that the full court disagrees with
the panel decision, but that didn't happen here. Instead, the en banc court reached
the same conclusion and in the process it provided vital new support and legitimacy
for the legal basis behind these age restrictions nationwide. No, they're not
legitimate, just because the court said they were, were slavery ever legitimate? Well,
courts upheld slavery at one time in this country. So don't tell me about legitimacy
being automatically assigned just because it was decided in court.
Some on the 11th Circuit Court disagreed, as did Mr. Judge Andrew Brasher.
He did dissent and Here is his comments on this, which are brilliant,
by the way.
He said, "In Florida, the age of adulthood is 18," and by the way,
you can Google that for yourself. "An 18 -year -old," he said, "in Florida is
emancipated from the care and custody of his or her parents, and they, in turn,
are no longer responsible for his or her care and support. 18 year olds are subject
to different and higher criminal penalties than children. That includes 17 year olds
and at that age a person may be sued and held liable for breach of contract.
Okay so all of these things they are now in the bracket called adulthood and
therefore all the rights of adulthood should apply. Oh,
but they don't because the 11th circuit said they didn't. The dissent continues.
He said, not only does this purchase restriction disarm an entire class of law
abiding mentally competent adults, it also disproportionately disarms adults who in the
words of the district court actually need firearms to defend themselves.
It's not something the district court said they're not prohibited from owning them.
Gee, what's the big deal? They're just prohibited from buying them. That's an
infringement. That's an infringement. He said,
because Florida allows young adults to possess and use guns if they can get them.
The people most affected by the purchase restrictions are adults who want to legally
obtain a firearm but lack the connections to get one for free. As the district
court explained, oh by the way let me back up there. What do you mean get one for
free? Well they're not allowed to purchase one. That even means in a private sale.
That also means they can't give mommy or daddy the money to run down to the gun
store and buy one for them. That's a straw purchase according to the NFA.
As the district court explained these adults quote unquote are very are likely
independent and likely to have families and children of their own and that's very
true. I know a police officer who's only 19 years old and he already has a wife
and two children. Please explain to me. Yes, I know. Well, he was issued a service
weapon. Yeah. Okay. He's kind of lucky. Yeah. By the way, I don't think he's
allowed to take his service weapon home. I'm not sure, but I'll check. I'm not sure
if that's department policy. Even if it is, that's the only gun he's allowed to
own. What about friends of his who are not police officers? What about them? Oh,
it's core to the state. you're not morally qualified because you are under 21."
Mr. Brasher continued with his dissent. He said, "For example, the restriction on
purchase means that a 20 -year -old single mother living on her own will be unable
to obtain a firearm for self -defense, but an 18 -year -old high schooler who lives
with his parents can still lawfully get a firearm from them or an older sibling.
Again, Florida Statute 790 allows 18 -year -old adults to possess and use guns if
they're able to acquire them. That's really what it boils down to. The people most
affected by the purchase restrictions are adults who want to legally own a firearm
but lack the connections. That's what the judge is saying.
He said, for example, excuse me, um, I'm sorry,
I've already read that part. So even the issue that the Florida legislature claimed
to address by passing the Marjory Stoneman Douglas law of 2018 was actually never
addressed by that law because that 18 year old living at home, he had the fire,
the one that shot everybody up there at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, he was the one
that acquired the firearm. Yeah. But now some other 18 to 20 year old living away
from mommy and daddy are not able to acquire one unless they got the connections.
Since when is the freedom to exercise a right you were born with dependent on what
connections you have? Hmm.
Judge Brasher's dissent continues. He said, like any other right, the right to bear
arms is not unlimited. That's bull crap. I'll explain that again in a minute.
But the constant through all these regulations from long before the founding and
enduring long afterward is that the public expected those between the ages of 18 to
21 to have access to firearms. And that's absolutely true.
Whether you want to agree with that or not, doesn't matter. Your agreement doesn't
make truth false or false, or falseness truth.
So he said, the meaning of the second amendment undoubtedly is that the people from
whom the militia must be taken shall have the right to keep in bear arms and they
need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose. And he was quoting
actually a portion of Heller then. He said unsurprisingly, then there were no
founding error laws prohibiting young adults from purchasing any firearm at all,
much less anything like the total criminal band in Florida statute 790 .065 paragraph
13. I tell you what, if you really want to know what the founders thought about
all this, I can go ahead and set everybody's claims to rest right here,
including those of the seventh and the 11th, yeah, the circuit court. Mr.
Tench Cox, whom I quoted several episodes ago, and I'm going to quote a lot from
what I quoted then, I want you to listen to this, because Tench Cox was addressing
the third,
And matter of fact, in his third essay that he wrote to Pennsylvania,
and it was regarding the the hand that the Congress,
the minority in Congress that said that the power of the sword,
that is the power of military might is in the hands of Congress alone.
Mr. Tench Cox took huge issue against that because that flew into the face of what
all the other founders stated, especially in writings like Federalist Paper Number 46.
Mr. Tinch Cox said this plainly in his essay, "The power of the sword," says the
minority of Pennsylvania, "is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen,
it is not so. For the powers of the sword are in the hands of the humanry of
America from 16 to 60. Gee,
where did that author get that 18 to 50 thing? Oh yeah,
that's 16 to 60. Did you hear that? 16 to 60.
This is the founder's intent. If you want to know what the Founders intended, here
it is. He said the militia of these free commonwealths entitled and accustomed to
their arms when compared with any possible army must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then that we shall turn
our arms, each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the
militia. Okay. That alone shoots the NFA down right there.
Yeah. What, read it. What does it say? Congress has no power to disarm the militia.
They have no constitutional authority to take the arms of adults from their hands.
He said their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the
birthright of an American.
What clause in the state or federal constitution has given away that important right,
Mr. Tenchcox asked, he said, "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God, it will ever
remain in the hands of the people." Again, Tenchcox in his third Pennsylvania essay,
you can Google that for yourself. Now this passage is not ambiguous in the least.
It's very plain to see what Mr. Tench Cox was trying to convey. He stated
explicitly that the militia consists of every man from age 16 to 60,
and that no Congress, no legislative body, anywhere in America had any authority to
dispense the power of arms to whomever they felt deserved it. No, they have no
control over it. He said very plainly, "Congress has no power over this right." Let
me give you one last comment here.
Why cannot the people, including 18 to 20 year olds,
be trusted by the government with the same arms as the police and military,
especially when 18 to 20 year olds are carrying those same arms in the service of
the police and the military and their collective services to the people.
Especially when, and I'm going to bring this out in the next episode, especially
when you think that keepers and bearers are the most lawful and the most protective
demographic in American society today, over and above even police officers and way
over elected legislators and corrupt activist judges.
I'm going to give you more proof of that in the next episode, so you'll have to
tune in to find out. Go ahead and share this episode around if you would. Don't
forget to stay in contact with your reps. Make your voice heard. Don't give me this
crap. Well, they don't listen to me. You keep yelling at them then. You keep
yelling at them until they listen to you. And if they don't listen, that's what
primaries are all about and elections are all about. That's what it's all about
right there. Stay trained up. Keep a loaded firearm on your person at all times
outside the door of your home and even inside your home if you want. Don't matter
to me. Also, never forget, incoming rounds always have the right of way.
Royce out. ♪ My patriotic
youth ♪