How Can They Uphold and Defend It When They Don't Know It?

Royce highlights two cases, one in his home state of Florida, where a sheriff and state attorney are fighting to keep a ban on open carry in place, and their reasoning glaringly proves their willful ignorance of the Constitution.

Then, in Robinson v. U.S., the Eleventh Circuit, in total violation of the Bruen standard, upheld the federal restriction on SBRs without doing the required historical analysis required by the Bruen standard.  

There is too much ignorance of the Constitution in high places, and that is utterly unacceptable.

Transcript

Life has a way of throwing unforeseen events and new opportunities our way at Glover
Orndorf and Flanagan wealth management They are dedicated to putting your interests
first with a truly personalized approach They are there to bring confidence to your
investment planning choices whether you need income production for retirement 401k
guidance Long -term investments or other financial planning needs They'll focus on the
establishment of a plan tailored to your life's priorities. For more information, call
Built Orendorf's partner with Glover Orendorf and Flanagan wealth management today at
321 -344 -1202. 321 -344 -1202.
Investment products and services are offered through Wells Fargo Advisors Financial
Network, LLC. Member SIPC, Glover Orendorf and Flanagan, LLC is a separate entity
from Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network.
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 or A -P -H -F dot O -R -G.
Let's go,
Roy's part like the keeper in the bar of truth we know
Only the facts about the second amendment And never ever forget that all gun control
balls are nothing less than over an act of aggression against the American people
and their rights Besides your rights in a safe way 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 Roy Spartnick and... ♪ And the shootin' 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 are locked, loaded, and we are loud 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 also gracious, cute, cuddly,
huggable, lovable, squeezable host, still reeking of gunshot residue,
toxic masculinity, and a faint yet also wildly tantalizing whiff of the cologne of
my people. Hops number nine. You better believe it. Hey, don't forget to check out
the shooting straight radio show farcebook page. I know it's Facebook, don't correct
me. I call it farcebook for obvious reasons, but you can catch the shooting straight
radio podcast page there. Check out the new logo, it's really cool and let me know
what you think about it. You can also reach out to me there on that platform, but
I may not see your message right away. So the best thing to do is hit me up at
shooting straight radio podcast at gmail .com or shooting straight radio show at gmail
.com and many of you always already reach out through that platform you get a very
quick response that way so hit me up there and also you can hit me up at the
send us a text button if you'll scroll down very top left corner of the description
box on this episode, you'll see, "Send us a text." It may not work on your
particular chosen podcast platform, but it works on most of them. You can reach out
to me there. All right, hey, first I wanna just do a quick update.
Many of you guys have been following the P320 debacle. Many of you own Sig P320s,
and many of you say, "Well, I've never had a problem with mine." And you know
what? I believe you. I know for a fact that there are multiple issues with those
guns that were later proven to be user error and not the gun.
I spoke about them on this program before. I happened to know the man who did the
investigation on two incidents, two law enforcement officers, two separate incidents.
One of them claimed that he was just sitting in a squad car and his gun just went
off. The other was a female law enforcement officer who said she merely took her
duty belt off when she got home and went to sling it onto the bed and it bumped
the bed post and fired. Okay, well those sounded all plausible,
especially in light of a lot of reports about the P320 until you start looking at
all the facts. My friend Eric, who did those investigations on those two incidents,
found some very interesting tidbits that points to user error.
Number one, if you're familiar with what a level three holster is, most law
enforcement agencies use a level three holster. There are dual,
what should I say, dual safeties on that holster that have to be manipulated in
order for you to retrieve that weapon from that holster. Number one, you have to
flip that top hood down and then there's a button that needs to be pushed backwards
and then the gun can be retrieved. Suffice it to say when that hood is flipped up
in its proper position and for that matter, even if the hood is down, well no,
no, let me, let me backtrack there. The hood is usually up and if the hood is up,
if that gun goes off in the holster, that slide cannot function completely.
In other words, The slide cannot come all the way back and re -chamber a fresh
round. On both of those incidents that I'm referencing, there was a spent cartridge
laying just a few feet away from the ground zero,
so to speak. How the heck does that happen if that slide cannot function inside
that level three holster. Hmm? Not only that, how did it chamber another round after
it kicked out the empty?
Oh yeah, I think that there was maybe a few problems with the P320 and a lot of
people who did stupid things with their P320s decided to blame it on SIG.
Now can I prove every bit of that? No. And as a matter of fact, I don't want SIG
P320s in any of my classes right now until this crap gets cleared up.
But many of you heard recently about this Air Force guy that was shot and killed
by allegedly by just a P320 that was sat down on the table, the M18.
Yeah, the military version of it with the manual safety on it. Allegedly, the thing
was just set down on the table. That was the first story that we got,
and it accidentally shot an airman and killed him. Now they're saying that the
incident took place in a restroom. So I'm not sure which story is true, but I am
going to go ahead and guess that this was not an accident because there has been
an arrest made over that incident. Very, very telling.
So while I want to be fair to everybody and while I have my trepidations about a
P320, let's face it folks, I don't know too many of us that would be ballsy enough
to, pardon the pun, to appendix carry a P320 without a holster.
You follow me on that, right? So I would do it with a Glock and a heartbeat, but
I don't appendix carry anyway. I don't want anything pointing down there if you know
what I mean. But I don't want them in my classes until all of this stuff is
ironed out. I think SIG may have some good lawsuits on their hands for defamation
that they could bring against those officers. And I believe those officers filed
false reports. I believe those guns were either in their hands or they were being
handled unsafely and they had a discharge. And I'm not even sure it was an
uncommanded discharge. I think they did something stupid and the trajectory of their
rounds bears that out. So take that with you in regards to the P320.
Am I saying that SIG's getting a bad rap? I don't know. Am I saying that these
things go off by themselves? I don't know. But until we do know,
those guns are not coming into my class. Now, I hear SIG has taken issue over that
and they're wanting to correct instructors who don't like SIGP320s in their classes
anymore. So, SIG, you can reach me at shooting straight radio podcast at gmail .com
and feel free to reach out to me and educate me. I'll be glad to listen. I'm not
going to be a jerk about it. Please say your side of things. I'd love to hear
them. Please explain why we can trust your pistols. All right?
All right, let's dive into things. In Florida, here in my home state,
there's actually a sheriff in St. Lucie County, a sheriff who open carries a gun
for a living. And so do all of his freaking deputies. And he and a state attorney
here in Florida are pushing back against a lawsuit that's trying to overturn
Florida's longstanding ban on open carrying of firearms.
And They want to try to have the whole thing quashed because they have some pretty
weird notions about what the Second Amendment does and does not permit.
I'll tell you right now, nothing in the text of the amendment gives the government
any right to pass any regulation or laws against the Second Amendment in any way,
shape, or form. So any and all gun control laws are illegal.
They're constitutionally repugnant, and we have every right to ignore them if we so
desire. As a matter of fact, if we could all be of one collective mind,
pardon the apparent communist illusion there, I'm not,
if we were all of the same mind, and we all said, you know what, tomorrow we're
gonna start open carrying, And if you try to arrest us, well, we're going to have
something to say about that. Yeah. If we all did that, what you're going to do,
you're going to arrest us all. You really want to bring your people up against us.
We're more armed than you are. And I'm going to go ahead and pick on you a little
bit here. Now all you law enforcement officers out there, most of you suck at
shooting. Yeah. There it is, I said it. I know very few of you that can actually
handle a handgun well, much less properly. I've seen some of y 'all shoot.
I've shot on tactical courses with some of y 'all and I was just flabbergasted by
what little y 'all actually know about handling a pistol. Now, if you're one of the
ones that are very good with a handgun, then I'm not I'm talking to you, am I?
I'm talking all of you out there. And yes, I'm talking about, I was a SWAT roundup
one year down here in Florida in Orlando.
And remember seeing a SWAT team, a SWAT, I said a freaking SWAT team who went
through this course. And in the last bit of the course, these four or five uh,
we're lined up abreast and like, uh, I was about 10 feet apart or so. And shooting
at steel targets rough, roughly 10 to 15 feet away. And this is what you hear
bang, bang, ding, bang, bang,
bang, ding, bang. Hey, this, I'm serious. It was a heart attack. I'm like, you guys
or defending me? You're protecting me? You are members of a SWAT team,
and you can't shoot a handgun any better than that? I really pissed one of 'em off
pretty bad when I hinted at him in my card and said, "If you want some private
instruction, look me up." And he snorted at me with laughter like, "Who are you?
"I'm the guy that could smoke you if I so desire. "That's who I am because I
train with my handguns "far more than than any of you do. I'm not trying to be a
jerk here to police officers. I'm saying y 'all really lack in the training
department when it comes to your handguns. Maybe you're good with a rifle, whatever.
But that handgun may be your most immediate form of protection, so your dad gun
will better be good with it because if you start hitting innocent civilians when
you're trying to protect them, you're gonna have some problems on your hand. So here
we got this sheriff in St. Lucie County, a state attorney who is trying to fight
against our right down here to open carry firearms. I'm going to continue with this
article and be referencing by Jack Kaminski. It says the officials have asked a
federal judge to dismiss the case arguing that the law that is the law that bans
open carry is constitutional. I don't constitutional? How? Where in the plain text of
the Second Amendment does it give the federal government or any state government or
any local government the right to pass any gun control law that inhibits the free
exercise of the keeping and bearing of arms? They said the law was constitutional
and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to challenge it. No, they don't.
It may be a location issue that may cause the lack of standing,
but they certainly have every right if their rights are being infringed and inhibited
and violated by this law, they have standing. On Friday, St.
Lucie County Sheriff Richard Del Toro and 19th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Thomas
Bakadal filed a 21 -page motion for summary judgment with U .S.
District Court Jose Martinez. The motion asks Judge Martinez to rule in their favor
and, in doing so, avoid a full -scale trial. Why would you want to avoid a full
-scale trial if you guys are really on the right side of things? That was a
rhetorical question. The defendants core argument is that the second amendment does
not protect a right to openly carry guns as long as another form of public carriage
such as concealed carry is permitted. Okay. I wanna hear from the shooting straight
radio audience out there, I would not write this second 'cause I mean, you're
hearing this long after I recorded it, but you feel free to reach out, shooting
straight radio podcast at gmail .com. You tell me how this squares with the Second
Amendment. They say the Second Amendment does not protect a right to openly carry
guns. Let's just stop right there. Let's digest that for a second. How in the world
can you grasp that from the plain text of the Second Amendment. And by the way,
they reference the plain text of the Second Amendment here just a second. We're
going to get into that. But all as long as another form of public carriage is
available, then, you know, no, that right to open carriage is not protected. How did
you come to that conclusion by reading the plain text and history of the Second
Amendment. Wow. Good night. They also said,
Arthur Buddy Jacobs, an attorney for Del Toro and Bakadal, he made this idiotic
statement. The Second Amendment's plain text. Well,
let me go ahead and give you the plain text real quick, because I know y 'all know
it, but just for context. A well -regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep on and bear that carry arms,
shall not be in friend, shall not be violated, shall not be hindered in any way
shape or form. The Second Amendment's plain text does not protect the right to the
open carrying of guns? As long as there's another means of public carrying available?
Where do you read that in the plain text of the Second Amendment, Mr. Jacobs? By
the way, why didn't you respond to my email? That was also a rhetorical question.
Where do you get this
We can carry them any dad gum way we feel like it, as long as we're not carrying
them in a menacing fashion. We can wear them openly. We can wear them concealed.
And it's none of your dad gum business either way we choose to do it. The motion
further asserts that the right to quote unquote bear arms does not guarantee the
right to carry them in any specific manner. Really? Let's go through it again.
A well -regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to carry, to keep, to own, to acquire,
and bear carry arms shall not be infringed "Unless the state says you should only
carry them in a specific manner, does your constitution say that?" Yeah, my copy
doesn't say that either. So how in the world do you come to this idiotic, utterly
ignorant, constitutionally repugnant notion that the Constitution and the Second
Amendment say things that it don't say? How can you say that? The defendants filing
states, "While plaintiffs would have this court believe that laws regulating the
matter in which individuals publicly carry their firearms are some kind of a recent
aberration inconsistent with this country's traditions and history, such a claim could
not be further from the truth." Okay, really? Show your work. Prove it. Yeah,
give us an analogous example. Any? Huh? Well,
none of the laws that are in existence today that inhibit the right to keep and
bear arms can possibly be squared with any historical example. None.
Oh, unless you're talking about the heavily racist gun control laws.
Oh, you can square with them. Easy. Yeah. The defendant's motion also challenges the
plaintiff's legal standing, noting that the lead plaintiff, Richard Hughes, is a Palm
Beach County resident while the lawsuit was filed in St. Lucie County.
Well probably because that's where the infraction by the sheriff took place. They
argue that the plaintiffs are seeking an overly broad ruling and that they should
have sued officials in jurisdictions where they actually live or intend to engage in
the challenged conduct. Why is it challenged? Who are you to challenge it?
See, here's my problem. Y 'all are going to think I'm beating up on police officers
today. I've got many of them as friends, so you can just throw that out the
window, okay?
Too many police officers think that the badge is a crown for them to wear.
It's not. It doesn't make you God. It doesn't make you anything but a public
servant. One more time, your badge makes you a public servant.
You are a servant to the public. All of you, every gum blasts, one of you took an
oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. So help you God.
You took that oath before God. And yet you think somehow that you can stand up as
if you're some sort of an authority simply because you were a badge and you arrest
bad guys that you can tell us how we're supposed to carry our guns.
How about we tell you the same damn thing? How about that? No, you can't carry
your guns open anymore. You police officers, you have to carry them concealed. No,
matter of fact, you have to wear them in a cummerbund type holster around your
midsection. How about that? You want to go there? Because y 'all are nothing but
civilians too. You know that, right? Yeah, you're not military. And I get really
ticked off whenever I hear a police officer talk about someone who's not a cop as
a civilian. Mr, you're a civilian too. That's right.
You're a public servant. That's all you are. You are not in a position of,
you're not a ruler. You're not a king. You're not a queen. You're not a prince.
You do not have absolute authority over us unless we have crossed the line and
violated an established law, a right moral law.
Then you have authority over us, but until that happens, you have zero authority
over me, over my fellow keepers and bearers, and you don't get to stand up and use
your badge to as a cudgel to beat us and beat our rights out of us and try to
tell us that you know better than we do. And we should therefore listen to you and
just not freely exercise the rights we were born with that people died for. Yeah.
You think you, you have that kind of authority that you can stand up as an
authority and tell us when I start with the second amendment says not only are most
of you woefully, woefully under -trained with your handguns, all of you,
except for a very select few, are constitutionally dyslexic.
And you need to unscrew yourselves and get back into the Constitution and start
studying case law and quit trying to come down hard on the side of authoritative
aggression against the people. You don't get to tell us, Well, the Second Amendment
doesn't say that. You don't know what the Second Amendment says. You don't know.
Just read it for yourself. How about that? Oh, I bet you think you have the right
to open carries only because you have a badge. Oh, well, therefore you must have
superior rights to us then, is that it? Yeah, grab yourself a hammer and head for
the sandpile, how about that? Yeah, no response from either the sheriff or the state
attorney to my invitation to be my guest. I know that's a shocking, isn't it?
So I doubt we'll be hearing from them, but you will be hearing from me in just a
few minutes after we hear from the finest sponsors on the planet. So we'll be right
back with more Shooting Street.
Hey guys, let me tell you what. Counter -Strike Tactical is the absolute best little
gun store in Melbourne, and proud sponsors of the Shooting Straight Radio podcast.
Come visit us at 1008 Strawbridge Avenue and see the custom AR builds by Anthony
Vallejo, owner and combat veteran, plus AK -47s, handguns, ammo,
tactical rifle accessories, and much more. So stop in and see us at 1008 Strawbridge
Avenue and visit the best little gun store in Melbourne. Or give us a call, 321
-499 -4949, tell Anthony that Roy sent you, we can't wait to see ya.
As many of you know, I, your host, am a firearms instructor and I run all of my
firearms training business through shootingclasses .com because it simply doesn't make
sense to try to do it all myself. With automated roster creation when students sign
up, pavement processing, and automated emailing to your students, reminding them of
the class date and time. It simply doesn't make sense to try to do all of that by
yourself. Get signed up with shootingclasses .com today, and take a big load off
yourself. Shootingclasses .com.
WJS Guns in North Merritt Island is where you need to go for your firearms,
ammunition, accessories, holsters, body armor, fishing tackle and much more.
WJS Guns also offers blue label pricing for law enforcement officers on multiple
firearms brands and above all WJS Guns offers friendly, exceptional service to
everyone, especially to us ladies and first -time gun buyers. For more information
check them out at wjsguns .com and always tell them Roy sent you.
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 Norm's Music Shop musicshop @gmail .com.
Let's create your musical identity. Thank you. Welcome back to the program as we
were talking about in the first portion of the show. Talking about how sometimes
people in positions of authority forget that they're actually in positions of service
and that they are public servants who swore and oathed up, hold and defend the
Constitution, and then seemed to spend every waking moment assailing it. And that's
certainly the case following that oh so famous infamous, if you're a Democrat,
Bruin decision, because there's a lot of people that just flat out ignore that.
Multiple states have flat out ignored the Bruin decision. What ticks me off about
that is the Supreme Court has done nothing to force them into line with that
decision and to Which should I say judge all of their proposed laws by the text
and history standard matter of fact How about all your laws that are already on the
books judge them by that and if they don't line up with it get rid of them all
right, but There is an absolute defiance going on against Bruin all of you out
there know that if there was a Bruin applied challenge Against the NFA the National
Firearms Act or the gun control act that it would not stand That test of text and
history You know it I know it the plain text of the Second Amendment itself shoots
down all, all 100 % of all gun control laws.
There's not one single gun control law in this country that can be proven to be
constitutional. And if any of you out there, and I don't mean my immediate audience,
but any of you out there who disagree and you wanna be on my program, shooting
straight radio podcast at gmail .com. Shooting Street Radio podcast at gmail .com.
I'll invite you on this program. You'll be treated fairly. You'll be given every
chance to make your case. But at the same time, I'm going to warn you that I'm
going to shred it. And not because I'm so smart. Actually, it's because most of you
out there that don't know crap about the Constitution and the Second Amendment are
so dumb. because if this old George Redneck can simply apply common sense by looking
at the text and the history, then what's your excuse? What's your excuse for
remaining willfully ignorant about that? So here's an article by F.
Ryle from Amoland. It's a great publication. And if you're able to help them out, a
couple of episodes ago, I put a link up that you can help and donate to them. And
I hope that you will. But this is from a couple of days ago, August 12th, by Mr.
Ryle, editor -in -chief at Amoland. And it's about short -barreled rifles, SBRs,
they're called. And let's just read it before I get to it far ahead of myself.
The fight over short -barreled rifles, or SBRs, isn't just about barrel link that's
about whether courts will follow the clear rules laid out in District of Columbia
versus Heller in 2008 and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruitt
in 2022 or whether they'll find creative ways to sidestep them. Yeah,
I think I'll go with the latter if I'm a betting man. They always try to find a
creative way to circumvent the law, the supreme law. Why? They're lawless.
That's why all Democrats are. You're welcome. In Robinson versus US, the 11th Circuit
upheld the federal restriction on SBRs without doing the required historical analysis.
And did you catch that? You see that R word required? Yes.
That's the Bruin standard. You are required 7th Circuit Court to first read the
plain text and then go back into history. But you've got to do the plain text
thing before you do the history thing. Cause if you go back into history and just
try to find any old law that will square with it to give you the excuse to make
an unconstitutional ruling, you'll probably find one. There's all kinds of gun control
laws going back to the late 1600s in this country, every last one of them was a
racist gun control law aimed entirely at black Americans.
Black slaves and black freedmen, free or slave, it was none of them were a matter
of fact in reconstruction. After the Civil War, laws were,
I mean, just a flurry of laws passed throughout the entire South against black
Americans and saying they can't own guns simply because of the color of their skin.
E. So it says instead it leaned entirely on US versus Miller,
which is a decision back from 1939, treating that 86 year old case about short
barreled shotguns as if it automatically decided the short barreled rifle question.
Well, it didn't. If you're familiar with the Miller decision, the judge simply said,
well, that sawed -off shotgun has no real use in the militia.
Oh, yes, the judge said it has no, it's not something that's commonly used in
militias, and therefore you don't have the right to keep and bear it. Well, a lot
of anti -rights people immediately said, "See there? See? Short -billed stuff.
They're not covered and protected by the Constitution." That's not quite true.
Not quite true at all. Let's read the rest of the article here. The Second
Amendment Foundation along with Second Amendment Law Center and California Rifle and
Pistol Association and the Minnesota gun owners caucus filed an amicus brief urging
the Supreme Court to take the case and to set the record straight. One, they say,
SBRs are arms under the Second Amendment and they are. Well, how do I know that?
Every M4 in military service in this country is an SBR.
It has a 14 and a half inch barrel, one and a half inches, whoo -hoo, big one and
a half inches, shorter than the minimum length of 16 inches for us lowly civilians.
Yeah, a 14 and a half inch barrel. So SBRs are arms covered by the Second
Amendment. And the article continues under Bruin, the test is simple. Does the,
number one, does the plain text of the Second Amendment cover the conduct. Yep.
Number two, if yes, does the government's restriction align with the nation's
historical tradition of firearms regulation? Yeah, it does if you're a racist.
Second Amendment Foundation argues the first step isn't complicated and it's not. All
firearms constituted arms, heller explained. citing founding -era sources at 554 U .S.
at 581, short -barreled rifles are still rifles. The difference is just an inch and
a half of barrel. The Eleventh Circuit's refusal to even engage in historical
analysis is what Justice Thomas has criticized in other cases as courts giving a
judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court's precedent. And that's exactly what
they're doing. How many times have I called this here that they're being simply
defiant? They may as well raise their middle finger towards the Supreme Court of the
United States and tell them to shove their Bruin decision where the sun don't shine.
And next, the Second Amendment Foundation, they noted that there is no historical
tradition of length restrictions. Man, that's true. There actually is one,
but it was aimed at cavalry men in the United States cavalry who were told that
they could not carry a gun with a barrel over so many inches because it was a
saddle gun and they didn't want to draw this long barreled thing out of this, you
know, out of they're, what do they call it, the scabbard, the quiver there, whatever
they call that, they're on their saddle horn. So that was the reason for the old
Sharp's carbine, as a matter of fact, the shortened carbine. But they said when
courts do try to find historical analogies, they come up empty because there's no
national tradition traditional banning common firearms based on barrel length and
that's very true. As a matter of fact people there's a Winchester that was built
back in the 1890s called the trapper model. It was a lever action you know the old
Winchester they made those in 14 inch and 15 inch barrel versions.
You know you understand that both of those would be illegal under today's NFA rules.
How do you like that? An interview out there that are collectors that collected
these things. Yeah, those things you need a tax stamp for that according to the NFA
and the ATF. The article continues. "These were not exotic weapons.
They were production firearms sold to the public." Second Amendment Foundation points
out that over 870 ,000 registered SBRs exist today, despite the NFA's burdens.
And millions of similar firearms, AR pistols, carbines with 16 -inch barrels, et
cetera, are in civilian hands without the NFA's extra taxes and registration
requirements. Hey, and guess what, people? There's not rampant bloodshed because of
it, woo -hoo. Then they say, well, even Miller supports the SBR protection.
And this is where I was talking about earlier. The 11th circuit claimed that Miller,
the Miller decision resolved the short barreled rifle question. No, it sure as
boopity blank and blip blap did not. Miller held that a short barreled shotgun was
not protected because there was no evidence that it had a militia use, but SBRs do.
That's the thing. Again, our military issues SBRs to the average infantry men out
there, especially if they're going into urban combat. They want the shorter barreled
thing for moving in and out of tight areas. Um, so this, the,
the, a short barreled shotgun and a short barreled rifle are two different things.
The only thing that makes it anything remotely like each other is the barrel is one
of them. They both have short barrels, okay? The article says, "If Miller is about
arms that are part of the ordinary military equipment, then SBRs are exactly that."
As Second Amendment Foundation notes, even the U .S. government's own brief in Miller
said the Second Amendment, quote, "gave sanction only to the arming of the people as
a body to defend their rights against tyrannical and unprincipled rulers, and the
arms in question were the ones useful for that mission. I love that.
That's right. If the military owns them, we have a right to them. And you know
what, again, I'm gonna say, even if the military did not own them, we have a right
to them. Our rights trump the government's rights. so government forces don't get to
have better stuff than us. All right? I'm gonna remind you again about the Gerundani
air rifle carried by Lewis and Clark. They knew that carrying gunpowder or trying to
procure gunpowder over such a long distance was not logistically feasible and so they
adopted for the Gerundani air rifle because it you could fill up the reservoir in
it with a hand bellows it had a multi -shot magazine up to 20 to 27 and it could
fire those I think was a 47 or a 50 -something caliber ball at about 600 feet per
second there was no telltale boom and smoke signature and it's scared to live in
dickens out of the natives who had no idea where they were being shot from Those
guns were not in common use. Lewis and Clark had every right to carry them and
anybody that could afford one of them had the right to own it. Just because it's
not in common use doesn't mean Jack diddly -crap squat. Do you understand how many
guns are on the open market right now that really are not in common use?
There's a lot of models out there that are no longer in common use or never were
in common use and we still have every right to own the dadgum things. The article
continues, the NFA's inclusion of SBR's, listen to this, was never based on a belief
they were dangerous and unusual because that's the other caveat. Well, if it's
dangerous and unusual, you can't have it. then how come the government can? After
all, they've proven that they're far less trustworthy with guns than we are. Congress
initially planned to ban handguns and SBRs were swept in only to prevent people from
substituting them for banned pistols. When the handgun ban failed due to public
backlash, SBR restrictions stayed anyway. A legislative Accident that became entrenched
law. How do you like that? A legislative accident.
Please explain to me how these SBRs are so much more dangerous than this common 16
-inch model, huh?
Aye aye aye. Then they start talking about special taxes and the Second Amendment.
It says this case is also about money. The NFA imposes a $200 tax on each SBR,
the equivalent of thousands of dollars in 1934 dollars, and the Second Amendment
Foundation argues that no historical tradition of taxing common arms existed and
historical examples of taxes on arms are very rare and they basically targeted
concealable weapons like bowy knives or small pocket pistols, not the standard -issue
arms of the day. And in 1856, North Carolina law even exempted pistols used for
military mustering from its weapons tax. Well, well, well. Other taxes were openly
discriminatory. In 1867, Washington County, Mississippi, imposed a $5 to $15 tax on
every gun and pistol, a sum that would be 108 to $325 today.
And that was part of reconstruction era efforts to disarm newly freed black citizens.
What did I tell you? Any, any analogous law in the past for gun control is going
to be racist. Don't, if you don't believe me, get on Google and do your homework.
Such laws are not the historical tradition Bruin calls for. They are examples of
unconstitutional abuse. Yes, amen to that. And then they say why the Supreme Court
should step in. Well, number one, if you can get the Supreme Court to step in, God
bless you. I don't think you're going to step up. Pam Bondi is not a
constitutionalist. She doesn't know crap about what the Second Amendment actually
protects. So don't count on her help on this. So, it said this is not an isolated
case. Second Amendment Foundation points out that several circuits, especially the
ninth and fourth, have repeatedly twisted or sidestepped Bruin, what did I tell you?
Defiance against Bruin. When lower courts appear bent on distorting this court's
Second Amendment precedents, waiting for more percolation only rewards judicial
resistance. Granting Robinson, that is the case Robinson,
would let the court affirm two key principles. One, all firearms are arms covered
under the Second Amendment. And two, restrictions must be justified by clear
historical precedent, not by skipping straight -to -outdated or misread cases like
Miller. And if the court isn't ready to take the full case. Second Amendment
Foundation urges at least a grant vacate remand with instructions to do the proper
historical analysis. Amen and amen. And that's what it boils down to,
people. We're not only governed by people in high office who are constitutionally
ignorant or openly defiant against the Constitution and openly defiant against Supreme
Court precedents that uphold and defend it. They are the ones up there making the
laws, but then they have the enforcers, the state and local enforcers,
who also, in spite of they take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution,
don't expect them to do it. I've said it before. This is gonna be an ongoing fight
until we teach everybody in this country the true depths of the Second Amendment,
what it really means. And a lot of them won't even look past the end of their
stinking nose to try to figure it out. They remain willfully ignorant. For all of
you out there, especially the sheriff in St. Lucie County, or I don't call it Port
St. Lousie, and that state attorney, I challenge both of you to read Federalist
paper number 46. Read that and you tell me what that says, especially when those
things were written by men who drafted the Constitution that you all took an oath
to uphold and defend. Yes, machine guns, short -barreled rifles,
short -barreled shotguns, any arm is covered by the Second amendment,
whether it's fully automatic, I don't care if it's a freaking mortar. I don't care
if it's a 50 caliber machine gun. I don't care if it's an anti -aircraft gun. If
the military can have it, so can we. What if we have to defend ourselves against a
strafing run from an F -35, huh? What happens when our military has been subjected
again to a bunch of communists like they were under Obama and Biden. What happens
if they start doing the things to us that Venezuela started doing to its citizens?
That's why our founders wanted us to have every military weapon available to us that
the government has. That's how they set
I'm going to leave you with this quote from Tench Cox that I have read before on
this program. He asked rhetorically, "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,
that is, no constitutional authority to disarm the militia.
Their Swords and every other terrible implement of the show, a soldier are the
birthright of an American. Listen, cause how many times have you heard from these
people, especially police officers that try to tell you and police chiefs and
sheriffs to try to say, Oh, the second amendment isn't unlimited. The heck it paint,
because Mr. Tinch Cox 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." Mr. Tinch Cox wrote that for the Pennsylvania
Gazette, February 20th, 1788, a mere three years before the Bill of Rights was
adopted into the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Stay trained up,
stay locked and loaded, make sure you always have trauma supplies on you when you
leave your home, you may need to save your own life, you stay in contact with your
reps, and yes, you reach out to these constitutionally dyslexic sheriffs and state
attorneys and tell them what you think about their willful ignorance of constitutional
issues. And never forget, incoming rounds always have the right of way.
Royce out.