Our Judicial System Cannot Be Fully Trusted To Defend Our Rights

FIRST HALF: The SCOTUS upholds an anti-2A decision from the 7th Circuit Court, by the simple act of refusing to grant a hearing thereof, essentially setting another negative precedent by allowing yet another anti-rights law to remain in place.

SECOND HALF:  The First Circuit Court rules that the 2nd Amendment (wait for it....) doesn't protect any right to actually purchase a firearm, only the right to own them. Yeah. That's a generous helping of weapons grade stupidity.

Transcript

THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS AUTO-GENERATED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY NOT BE PERFECTLY WORD-FOR-WORD ACCURATE OR GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. WE APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR ANY IRREGULARITIES AND/OR MISTAKES.

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,
handguns, 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.
The Gun Sight 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 rentals galore out there. If you want to try it before you buy it,
the Gun Sight in Merritt Island is where you need to go. Also, we've got a great selection of
ammunition, accessories, range bags. You name it, you'll find it out there at 125 South Banana
River.
That's
right. We are indeed locked, loaded, and loud on the Shooting Straight radio podcast.
This is all about firearms with a heavy, heavy emphasis on the Second Amendment. And I am Royce,
your oh-so-gracious, cute, cuddly, huggable, lovable, squeezable host. I like my coffee black and
my tea in the harbor. You better believe it. You can follow the program on Farcebook,
if you like, on social media. I post articles there, some of which I use.
in my show prep, but also they're very timely and they are definitely some of them warnings about
some of the things coming down the pike. So the shooting straight radio podcast, Facebook page or
on Instagram, there's not a lot of activity there on Instagram. I can't really post, you know,
audio and things like that anyway. So farce book is probably going to be the most relevant one.
If you want to follow there. Also, you can reach out to me at shootingstraightradiopodcast at gmail
.com or shootingstraightradioshow at gmail.com. And I always respond,
and usually within the hour. So reach out to me. If for any reason I don't respond,
reach out to me again. For some reason, my... Email platform kicks things to spam sometimes,
but you can reach out to me there. I always respond, and I sure do appreciate hearing from so many
of you, even when it's negative. Yeah, some of y'all have really let me have it for some of the
mean things I said about oath-breaking police officers not upholding and defending the supreme
law. And you know what? You're welcome to your opinions, just like I am welcome to mine.
But the stupidity of trying to tell me that until you put on the badge and strap on the gun and
blah, blah, blah, and do their job, you can't criticize them. Yes, I can. I'm their employer,
just like I can criticize the president, even though I've never been a president. I have every
right to criticize, especially when my taxpayer dollars pay your salary and you turn around and use
the power that we gave you to actively enforce flagrantly unconstitutional laws and you allow
yourselves to be used as the teeth in these laws to further the infringement.
So I have a lot to say about it. I have every right. to say something about it.
So keep the hate mail coming. I don't care. Now, this episode we're talking about today is a great
exhibition of the, what should I say, the typical mindset of the domestic enemies of the
Constitution. And it gives ample evidence that our public servants intend to disarm us.
I'm talking about mainly... the ones who are elected to office, but also the ones who just blindly
follow orders and enforce those gun control laws, even though we're the ones that gave them the
power and not the people whose laws they're enforcing. But they intended to disarm us regardless of
what the Constitution plainly says. These people are nothing but elitist trash.
And they have no right and no business, as far as I'm concerned, even living within the United
States. Now, if you want an example that encompasses both of those sets of public servants,
those public servants, that is those elected officials who pass laws that then our law enforcement
public servants enforce without hesitation. There's a Breitbart article,
and a matter of fact, it's posted on the Shooting Straight Radio podcast Facebook page, and it's
from A.W.R. Hawkins, writing for Breitbart. The title of it is, The Rhode Island State
Representative Made This Comment, Banning AR-15s Not Enough.
We should use police power to ensure owners dispose of them. Let me translate that.
We should use the police to go door to door and confiscate AR-15s if they are not surrendered to
us. Yes, in our whims and our will. We should use the police to make their life miserable and go to
their home, to the sanctity of their castles, and collect these firearms by force.
That is exactly what that Rhode Island state representative is calling for. And I will tell you
something else, all of you police officers in Rhode Island, you should all be issuing collective
blanket statements to that rep telling them, I don't know who you think you are, bud, but if you
want these guns confiscated, you go get them. Why are we supposed to put our lives on the line to
go enforce your unconstitutional crap? But sadly, I know that's not going to happen.
Nope. It's not going to happen. Unfortunately, too many public servants wearing badges in blue
gladly will turn their hands against their fellow citizens and then tell the fellow citizens who
are being impacted by their actions. just doing our job. You know, if you don't like it,
write your congressman. They're the ones that made this law. Yeah, well, you're the one that took
an oath to uphold and defend the supreme law. So what are you doing? If you're a police officer,
I'm going to say this again. If you blindly follow orders to assist in the disarmament of your
fellow citizens, and you are not worthy of U.S. citizenship as far as I'm concerned,
you're a traitor of the worst sort, and we the people have every right to defend ourselves.
against any unconstitutional enforcement brought by you. Yes, I said it. I said it loudly.
This is going to be on the air, probably permanently. I said it. I'll say it again. We the people
have every right to defend ourselves against unconstitutional enforcement of unconstitutional laws
that unconstitutionally disarm us and weaken our political power as the rightful final authority in
this country. We, the people. are that rightful authority.
Not any court, not any legislative branch, not any executive branch. Those people are all our
servants and they are under the bonds of the Constitution. They must uphold and defend it,
and when they step outside of that, they are stepping outside of the will of the people. The people
and our will is plainly expressed in the Supreme Law, and when they violate that and turn around
and use their power against us, we have every right to defend ourselves, to defend the
Constitution, and to truly uphold it, and to defend ourselves against this crap.
We have a right to defend our rights. How many people have died on foreign battlefields?
How many people died during the Civil War here, upholding and defending, for what they told us
anyway, the Constitution? Okay, so why is it then that all of those sacrifices are collectively
crapped on? whenever a new gun control law comes up, and whenever a bunch of intellectually lazy
and constitutionally dyslexic law enforcement officials think it's okay to just follow the will of
the legislators and not the will of the people. Yes. Now,
not only are there scumbags in Congress and in every state legislature trying to disarm the people,
the courts... are not upholding and defending the Constitution when these civilian disarmament laws
are being lawfully and rightfully challenged. And unfortunately, people, this is leading us ever
closer to Civil War 2.0. Because I don't know any of my fellow constituents who are ready to just
roll over, hand over our guns, and let the government do what they want to us. I don't know any of
them. Honestly, I don't. Worse yet. The incorrectly presumed final authority,
the Supreme Court of the United States, and by the way, they are not the final authority. We the
people are. Okay, that is borne out in our supreme law. The Supreme Court won't even enforce their
constitutionally correct opinions when lower courts defiantly rule against them.
All of this... should serve to warn us that we should be arming ourselves like never before,
stocking up on everything we can get, on plenty of ammo, plenty of arms, and be ready to defend our
rights because those above us, now they're not above us, I'm sorry, I spoke incorrectly there,
our servants in the legislatures and in Congress and in the courts are failing.
at upholding and defending the Constitution. Who does it naturally fall to then? The rightful
masters of both Congress and the courts. That is, we the people.
We should be preparing ourselves for the violence they will be bringing to us.
I assure you of that. Now, that rant there was the prelude to this article I'm going to read.
I'm going to reference heavily by Duncan Johnson, who is one of the editors for Ammo Land
Incorporated. AmmoLand.com. Follow them. They've got some fantastic pro-Second Amendment articles
going on there. And some very serious patriots write for them.
Cam Edwards, Tom Knighton, and others. And, of course, Mr. Duncan Johnson here. So here's the
article, generously interspersed with yours truly's commentary. The U.S.
Supreme Court on Monday denied certiorari, we'll just call it cert because I can't pronounce that
big word, denied cert in Schoenthal versus Raul, leaving a place,
I'm sorry, leaving in place a Seventh Circuit ruling that upheld Illinois' ban on carrying firearms
on public transportation. Okay? That's inaction by people who have been tasked by our supreme law,
with upholding and defending that supreme law. And that should be an offense that comes with jail
time as far as I'm concerned. Inaction is just as bad as bad action. The denial appeared.
on the court's April 6, 2026 order list, where number 25-541,
Schoenthal, Benjamin et al., versus Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois et al., was listed under
cert denied. That means the Seventh Circuit's September 2025 opinion remains controlling law in
Illinois. Well, at least for now. I'll tell you what also it means. It means that the Supreme Court
is essentially refusing to uphold its own text and history standard that came from the Bruin
decision. It also means that it's open season on the rights of the citizenry.
That's what it means. Yeah, but the... Filthy communists in Illinois already knew that, didn't
they? And that's part of their design, of course. Back to the article now. And the real problem
here is not just the result in one state, it's the reasoning the lower court used to get there.
The Seventh Circuit said, Illinois's public transit carry ban is...
Now listen to this, you're probably going to bust a gasket, because I know I did when I first read
it. The Illinois public transit carry ban is...
Comfortably situated in a centuries-old practice of limiting firearms in sensitive and crowded,
confined places. Then went a step further and held that the regulations in crowded and confined
places are ensconced in our nation's history and tradition. They are?
Seriously? No such practices exist in our history.
I'm talking about going back to colonial times, of course, not modern history.
No such practices exist. How in the blippity blank can you tell me that these things are...
comfortably situated in centuries-old practices. Well, they sure aren't comfortably situated in
the text of the Second Amendment, so how in the heck could they ever be comfortably situated in our
history of this? There is no centuries-old practice of limiting firearms in sensitive and crowded,
confined places. Man! Once a court starts treating crowded and confined as the metric for creating
a quote-unquote sensitive place ban, anti-gun states are going to try to apply that logic
everywhere they can. Well, they didn't just try. They have done that. They did that in New York in
defiance of Bruin. They've done it in other states in direct defiance of the Bruin decision.
Text and history. This, unfortunately, sets another constitutionally repugnant precedent,
people. It sets a precedent that leftists and their filthy ilk will be exploiting for decades to
come, I assure you. And the Supreme Court essentially rubber-stamped it as legitimate by denying
cert. Someone please tell me exactly why the Supreme Court is even remotely legitimate when they
refuse to strike down such crap, not just in light of the Constitution, but also in light of their
own rulings like, again I say, Bruin. My word.
The article continues, if Kerry can be banned at a place because it's busy and closed or hard to
exit, the list of so-called sensitive places... never stop growing.
Yeah, by the way, such places are exactly the type of places targeted by spree shooters in the
first place. Yeah.
Crowded and confined places, you know, like schools and buses and transit. Yeah. Today,
it's buses and trains. Tomorrow, it's train stations, public parks, entertainment districts,
events, and any other place politicians decide they feel is too populated for ordinary citizens to
exercise one of their rights. That is exactly the kind of interest balancing that Bruin was
supposed to stop. To be clear, the Seventh Circuit did acknowledge that the Second Amendment's
plain text covers the conduct at issue here. The panel said, quote-unquote, everyone agrees the
amendment covers the plaintiff's desire to ride public transit while carrying...
concealed firearm for self-defense. So this was not a case where the court claimed the right
simply did not apply. Instead, the judges upheld the ban by concluding the state had carried its
burden under Bruins historical tradition test. How in the name of Genghis Khan could anyone with a
third grade level of reading comprehension come to such an idiotic conclusion.
No, really, just wow. The court's reasoning leaned heavily on the physical characteristics of
public transit. Of course, not on the Constitution. They didn't lean heavily on that.
They didn't lean heavily on the text and history. No, they leaned on physical characteristics. It
described trains and buses as, quote, discrete, confined places,
end quote. where it is difficult to avoid someone wielding a firearm. Well,
it's also difficult to avoid someone wielding a knife, unless, of course, you have a firearm.
The panel said the risk of stray rounds hitting innocent people is high.
Well, only if the police are shooting at them. Noted that escape is generally impossible when
vehicles are moving and stressed that a distracted driver injured or killed by gunfire could
endanger everybody on board and even people outside the vehicle. The Seventh Circuit opinion also
emphasized the challenge first responders face in confronting violence inside,
quote, crowded and confined metal tubes. Yeah? But you're consigning untold numbers of citizens to
defending themselves empty-handed inside those same crowded metal tubes.
Yeah. So you're concerned for the safety of first responders,
but not for the safety of the average citizens that ride that public transit daily.
Got it. If this does not exemplify the disdain felt by elitists sitting on court benches against a
common citizen, I don't know what does. The article continues,
however, Bruin analysis does not ask whether judges think a law is sensible in modern life.
It asks whether the government can prove a modern restriction is consistent with the nation's
historical tradition of text and history. When the Supreme Court discussed sensitive places in
Bruin, it did so in narrow terms, not as a blank check for states to disarm people anywhere
officials see crowds. The court said modern regulations may be upheld by analogy to quote
longstanding end quote laws barring firearms in quote unquote sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings. It then stressed that the historical record revealed only quote-unquote
relatively few such places, giving examples like legislative assemblies,
polling places, and courthouses. Yeah, because they don't want a bunch of people coming into a
courthouse armed and influencing the judge's decision. Yeah, by intimidation.
You know, that actually happened in the Old West in none other courtroom than that of...
the infamous Judge Roy Bean, the same one that fined a dead man $5 or $20 or something for carrying
a concealed weapon. Yeah.
There was an Irishman working on the railroad with a bunch of his fellow Irishmen who got into a
scrap with one of the Chinese workers there and ended up killing him. Well,
the Irishman was put on trial and... In order to get the verdict they wanted,
all of his fellow Irishmen crowded Judge Roy Bean's courtroom and were glaring at him menacingly,
and also while fingering large bowie knives and handguns, as I understand it.
And Judge Roy Bean actually looked up at one point, read the crowd, paused for a moment,
closed his law book, and said, wow, there is definitively laws.
There are definitive laws against the murder of another human being. There's no definitive,
there's no particular law that makes it illegal to kill a Chinaman. Case dismissed.
Yeah, so his verdict was, what should I say, influenced heavily by an angry mob in his courtroom.
Courtrooms? Okay, I understand that then. Legislative assemblies? Sure, you don't want people in
there trying to intimidate legislators and things like that.
You could do that by directly contacting their office. Not only in intimidation, I mean letting
your voice be heard. Just as important, the article continues, the Supreme Court also drew a clear
limiting line. In rejecting New York's attempt to defend its Kerry regime by pointing to crowded
urban conditions, The court said there was, quote, no historical basis, end quote,
for New York to effectively declare Manhattan a sensitive place simply because it was crowded and
generally protected by police. The justices actually warned that expanding the category of
sensitive places to all places of public congregation would,
in effect, exempt citizens from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to
publicly carry arms for self-defense. That warning should have been the guardrail. Instead,
the Seventh Circuit treated crowded and confined places as a constitutionally meaningful category
of its own. And they did. The panel said there is an unbroken chain of regulations in crowded and
confined spaces. You know, there's also an unbroken chain of regulations against mass murder in
those areas and against attacking individuals in those areas. But all of the people that are being
arrested and turned back out hours later these days don't seem to care about that unbroken chain of
regulation in crowded and confined spaces. No. they're going to those crowded and confined spaces
because it's a happy hunting ground for them. You know, the shooting fish in a barrel? Yeah.
Killing people in crowded metal tubes? Yeah. Cited railroad-era restrictions as corroborating
evidence and concluded that this additional history removes any doubt that Illinois public transit
restriction falls within that tradition. Bull fertilizer. The court not only upheld a ban,
but also blessed a framework that future courts will use to justify additional location-based
prohibitions. If the Supreme Court wants to keep Bruin from being hollowed out by creative
analogies, it is eventually going to have to step in and draw firmer lines. I don't know how much
firmer they could be. If sensitive places expand to include... Crowded and confined as enough
justification for disarmament, the right to bear arms in public starts shrinking fast.
Once that exception grows large enough, what remains is not a right that ordinary citizens can
count on. It's a right that exists only where the government decides conditions are calm,
spacious, and convenient enough to tolerate it. That is not what Bruin promised, and it is not a
result the court can ignore forever. Amen. So the Supreme Court needs to get off its backside and
uphold and defend the Constitution and its own constitutionally correct decisions like Bruin.
Or they're simply allowing this evil to continue.
And that is unacceptable. Going to take a brief commercial timeout here. Don't go anywhere.
All the listener retention squads are on standby. Be right back with more Shooting Straight.
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 III and NFA weapons,
ammo and accessories, gunsmithing. 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 Norm's Music Shop at
gmail.com.
Let's create your musical identity. Thank you. Welcome back to the program.
We have been discussing why we the people need to be ready soon to uphold and defend the
Constitution because those that we elected to do so aren't doing their jobs.
especially Congress and the courts in particular. And we need to be ready to punctuate the second
amendment and all of our rights very soon because the state by state conquering of the United
States is in full swing. And we need to be ready to fight against these filthy communists and if
necessary, even their enforcers. So,
While we were working the other day, and I had a guy come in the shop,
and he was old school like me, and he says, I can remember when I used to buy guns without filling
out any kind of a form like this. I said, yes, sir. I remember when I first bought a gun, I had to
fill out a one-page form, but it was a yellow form, actually, a yellow .4473,
I remember. But there was no background check. And I walked in, I paid cash and I filled out the
form and I walked out. Now, that shouldn't be a problem for lawful people to accept that.
But I said, yeah, well, how many other of your rights do you have to fill out a form, a government
form to freely exercise? I don't have to fill out a 4473 form to go to church.
I don't have to fill out a form, a federal form to speak freely. I don't have to fill out a federal
form to petition my government for a redress of grievances. I don't have to fill out a form to go
to church. I think I might have already said that one. I don't have to fill out a form and have it
pasted on my door to keep the cops from kicking it in without a warrant. Why in the bluebitty blank
do I have to fill out a form and go through a background check every time I want to purchase a
firearm? I have a right to purchase a firearm. That right is encompassed in the word keep in the
Second Amendment. So this next article has to do with three-day waits and how the First Circuit
Court of Appeals loaded with filthy, godless communists appointed by Biden and Obama-not.
They issued the most constitutionally laughable,
decision regarding three-day waits. Now, we have one here in Florida, and it's an abomination. And
I've said this also speaking to people where I work. I said, that's funny. I don't have to wait
three days to go to church. I don't have to wait three days to speak freely. I don't have to wait
three days for any of my other rights. Why do I have to wait three days to take home a firearm even
after I successfully passed a background check?
So, The First Circuit says Second Amendment does not protect buying guns.
That was in their decision, Beckworth versus Fry. This is an article by John Crump,
also from Ammo Land. In a stunning ruling, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to
acquire or purchase firearms. Really?
glaringly exhibits that the entirety of this three-judge panel on the First Circuit cannot read
plain English, they have no constitutional sensibility, and they are have no problem willfully
assaulting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and none of those are acceptable for
someone sitting on a judge's bench who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
The case, Beckwith et al. v. Frye, was brought by several Maine residents and businesses against
Maine Attorney General Aaron Frye. It challenged a 2024 Maine law requiring a 72-hour waiting
period for gun purchases. The law was enacted six months after the October 2023 mass shooting at a
bowling alley in Lewiston, Maine, in which 18 people were killed and 13 others were injured.
In response, the state introduced the quote-unquote cooling-off period.
I see. So... Does this mean that they believe that that incident would not have happened if that
murderous pile of excrement had simply waited three days to take possession of his firearm? Well,
actually, he had a three-month cooling-off period because he purchased the gun he committed his
heinous act with in July of 2023, and he committed his act in October of 2023.
How much more of a... cooling off period do you think would have worked for this guy? The
plaintiffs argued that the mandatory three-day waiting period violated their Second Amendment
rights. A federal district court judge agreed, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed
on the merits, that they would suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities favored
them. After conducting a Bruin analysis, The judge issued a preliminary injunction.
Under step one of the Bruin framework, the district court examined the conduct in the light of the
plain text of the Second Amendment. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were part of the people
and that the right to keep and bear arms included the right to acquire arms. You know,
this sounds a lot like...
Florida representative Randy Fine told me right to my face after I confronted him at the WMMB
studio back in 2018 after he voted for the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Act,
and he tried to tell me that, well, people don't really have a right to buy firearms. How do they
keep guns if they can't buy guns, Randy? Well, back then they all made their own. No, they didn't
all make their own. What kind of jackass, stupid, ignorant statement is that? I was a little more
polite about that. But anyway, he kept talking over me, and I finally had to bark at him and tell
him to stop talking over me. And suddenly he got the picture.
By the way, if anybody would like corroborating evidence for that,
Mr. Bill Mick, host of Bill Mick Live on WMMB and iHeartRadio weekday mornings from 6 to 9 a.m.,
was also in the studio. Randy has tried to deny that, but nice try, Randy.
Courts across the country have long held that there can be no meaningful right to bear arms if one
cannot first acquire them. I mean, that should be his first chapter in the book of duh. Having
found that the law burdens protected conduct, the court then moved to step two and allowed the
state to present historical analogs to justify the 72-hour waiting period.
The state failed to do so. Okay, good. So it was thus concluded by what was that?
What court was that? Oh, for Pete's sake, I'm having a brain hiccup.
Anyway, that court, that appeals court, yeah, it wasn't appeals court. They rightfully said,
no, the state has failed to prove that this waiting period is constitutional.
But then Maine appealed to the First Circuit. where the case was heard by a three-judge panel
consisting of one Obama appointee and two Biden appointees. By the way, did you catch that little
salient thing there?
Maine, the state of Maine, under the direction of Attorney General Fry,
he went to great lengths to go after That three-day waiting period again,
in other words, to try to reinstate it, it was so important to him. Does this not exhibit to you
how far the state will go and to fight to wrestle power from the people?
Oh, Royce, come on, waiting periods don't take power from the people. Well, let me ask you this.
Is a right delayed a right denied?
Absolutely. You don't get to say, hey, I'm going to apply for my right to exercise my right.
And the state says, okay, you can do that, but just not right now. You can three days from now
instead. Well, why not right now? Because I said so. Well, that's not good enough. Well, it's for
other people's safety. Well, I'm no danger to anybody. Then you don't have any problem waiting
three days then, do you? That's the reasoning, the circular reasoning. The panel,
the three-judge panel, reversed the district court. holding that the lower court had erred in its
Bruin analysis. In its opinion, the majority cited not the Supreme Law,
not the text of the Second Amendment, no, not the Bruin decision. What did they cite?
Opinions on gun violence from the American Academy of Pediatrics and other gun control groups that
have held such positions. They didn't cite the Constitution. Nope, they didn't even cite any actual
law. They offered no factual evidence as to the efficacy of waiting periods,
probably because none exist. No, they offered opinions from anti-rights,
civilian disarmament cartels, and intellectually neutered morons. Opinions,
yes, people's opinions are more important than the text in history of your Second Amendment,
as far as they're concerned. Total disregard of established,
documented law. The First Circuit panel determined that the district court should never have
reached step two of the Bruin analysis. Well, I agree with that, but for a different reason. They
never should have got to step two because the plain text blows away any three-day waiting period.
According to the panel, there is no Second Amendment right to acquire a firearm because purchasing
a gun in their communist opinion, is not protected conduct.
The court concluded that the 72-hour waiting period is constitutional.
Really? Show me 72-hour waiting period in the Constitution, then. Well,
you say it's constitutional. If it's constitutional, it has to be somehow referenced in the
Constitution. They say, we agree with the Attorney General's view.
that laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of firearms do not target conduct covered by the
Second Amendment's plain text. First of all, this is obvious that Fry,
Attorney General Fry, has connections on this court. And I believe he had it sent to this court for
his appeal. Yeah, they're all buddies. All these communists flock together just like birds of a
feather. But... He says, we agree that.
Laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of firearms do not target conduct covered by the Second
Amendment's plain text. Okay, so what you're saying, the people have a right to own them,
but not to acquire them. How do you, you know, probably 99.9% of all ownership begins first with
acquisition. You do understand this, right? Even Ray Ray and Ice Pick on the street corner
understand this. Except they don't abide by waiting periods for some strange reason.
So how does the text of the Second Amendment not also protect the purchase of firearms if it
protects the ownership of firearms? That is some first-class weapons-grade stupidity at its
finest. They said, in their opinion, The amendment's plain text guarantees an individual's ability
to keep and bear arms, which means to have and carry guns. The act does not address this conduct.
Considering one is the natural prelude to the other, it's kind of like,
well, yes, you have the right to hold your breath, but you don't have the right to draw it in.
Same thing. You have the right to own something, but you don't have the right to buy it.
Yeah, just... I feel stupider just having read this.
I'm telling you.
Rather, the act imposes a limitation in some circumstances on when a person can acquire a firearm
after the person purchased it. Well, the act is wrong. They don't have any right to pose any
limitations on it. The act thus regulates conduct that occurs before a person keeps or carries a
gun. Exactly. It is a prelude to ownership, which means it's naturally covered by the text of the
Second Amendment. You understand that purchasing is necessary to keeping,
right? I mean, your house that you live in, your honors, your houses that you live in.
That we paid for, by the way, for you to make these stupid decisions. Your houses, you purchased
them. You have a right to own a home, which means you have the right to purchase a home. You have a
right to own a vehicle. Well, which means you have the right to buy a vehicle. You don't have the
right to steal one. You have the right to own a gun. Which means you have the right to purchase
one. You don't have the right to steal one. Wow. That I even have to bring this out is proof.
of the constitutional dyslexia that has infected our court system. How utterly devoid of
chronological thought processes and reasonable sensibility does someone have to be to sit on a
judge's bench these days and pound his little gavel? Accordingly,
they said, applying Bruin's plain text analysis, the act imposes conditions and qualifications on
the commercial sale of firearms. No, it doesn't. It imposes conditions and qualifications on the
acquisition of firearms. This is not an imposition against the retail establishment,
though they are also badly affected by it. Yeah. The act imposes conditions and qualifications on
the commercial sale of firearms that do not directly restrict the textual rights protected by the
Second Amendment. Yes, it does if the retailer from whom we buy firearms is impacted by this and is
not allowed to sell us a gun for three days and we're not allowed to take possession for three
days. How in the world can you even let something like this fall out of your mouth? Follow the
logic here, your honors. If you're able to, can someone lawfully take possession of anything
without purchasing it, much less a firearm? Will they be restricted from taking possession of it
prior to those three days passing that you're referring to? Okay, when their rights are being
denied for 72 hours based on what, how can you say,
that a right delayed is not a right denied, even if it's only for 72 hours.
What are you basing this on? The actions of bad people with guns? I mean,
on top of the opinions from other stupid people. This decision creates a clear circuit split,
according to the author. Amen, John Crump. I'll tell you what it also does. It also proves that the
judges on the First Circuit Court are filthy communists who are appointed by other filthy
communists because the Seventh Circuit, back during their ruling on Izzel versus City of Chicago,
got my syllables mixed up. I think I might have had it right the first time,
though, accidentally. The Seventh Circuit upheld that the right to keep and bear arms includes the
right to acquire firearms. That was back in 2011. Not only that, In Texierra v.
County of Almeida, 2017, and also in Ewan v. Bonta in 2025,
the Ninth Circuit, shockingly, agreed that we have the right to even acquire firearms,
to purchase firearms, and it was inherently part of the right. Even the Tenth Circuit agreed with
this in the Ortega v. Grisham ruling back from 2025.
So the author here says, the First Circuit's ruling is an outlier.
Amen? It is. It's absolutely an outlier. It lies outside the reasonings of the Constitution.
It lies outside the principles of liberty outlined therein. It lies outside the text of the Second
Amendment. It lies outside of common sense rulings that have come before it.
And it is indeed nothing but a communistic, filthy, godless outlier. He said,
if the plaintiffs petition for a writ of cert, the Supreme Court seems likely to grant review given
the clear circuit split. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Crump, I don't know if I would count on that
anymore. I'm not sure we can count on the Supreme Court for anything reasonable anymore.
I'm not sure if the Bruin... principle was their last gasp, but they sure don't seem very
interested in upholding and defending that decision,
much less the supreme law. So, my fellow keepers and bearers,
with all this in mind, I say it is up to us.
We are the final authority. in all matters constitutional.
We outrank the Supreme Court. We outrank the executive branch. We outrank every legislature,
not only the federal, but in every state. We, the people, are the final blipity-blanking authority
because we uphold and defend the Constitution far better than the people we have elected and or
hired to do so. They are willfully violating their oath, and something's going to need to be done
about that soon, because I'm going to tell you right now, the more they violate it, the more
comfortable they're going to become violating it, and the more reasonable it's going to seem for
them to violate it. even further of course for our own personal safety of course you know yeah my
fellow keepers and bearers this may soon be approaching our lexington green moment don't doubt me
on this stay in contact with your reps you stay trained up you stay armed up and you never forget
incoming rounds always have the right of way oh by the way quick teaser In the next episode,
we'll be talking about Governor Beshear in Kentucky vetoing a carry bill for 18 to 20 year olds.
And we'll also learn some lessons from a psychopathic mass murderer.
Stay locked and loaded. Royce out.