Keeping and Bearing Ain't For Us Lowly Folk

First Half: A look at how the Heller decision was actually a loss for 2nd Amendment rights, as can be seen in a Constitutionally dyslexic decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Second Half: Royce explains why he despises a recent bill that would allow national, unpermitted, uninhibited right-to-carry for retired elite special forces personnel,...but not the rest of our former armed service members.

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. heard about him 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. Drive in Merritt Island. Check him out at gunsightrange.com.
Make sure you tell Steve Kennedy that Royce Bartlett sent you.
And
he said,
let's go. So let's go. We are locked and loaded in loud on the shooting straight radio podcast.
This is all about firearms with a heavy, heavy emphasis on the Second Amendment and all things
pertaining thereto. I am Royce, your oh-so-cute, cuddly, huggable, lovable,
squeezable host, and I love my coffee black and my tea in the harbor.
Hit me up with an email if you'd like to at shootingstraightradiopodcast at gmail.com.
or shootingstraightradioshow at gmail.com, and I usually get back to you within the hour.
All right, let's go ahead and dive right on into things, because we've got a lot to cover. I'm sure
most of you by now have been seeing the Southern Poverty Law Center in the news today.
Of course, if you watch... and ABC and CNN and all of those,
for some mysterious reason, you're probably not going to see it there.
Try looking it up at Breitbart or the Gateway Pundit on your online service.
Or check out maybe, I don't know if Fox News is... Yeah, they are. Yeah, Jesse Waters actually
brought out a tidbit about it. And so,
yeah, the reason I... chordling over this. These people have been some of the most vocal proponents
of American disarmament since they have been, you know, since their inception, really.
They have manufactured countless false flags, countless straw racist boogeymen that they have
propped up as being all right-wingers and things like that, when nothing could be further from the
truth. It's always been Democrat communists who have been the racist ones, and they still are.
This is the Democrat Front Group. I do believe that they were funneling money back to the Democrat
Party also, but we'll wait for more of the news to come out. They've been found to have strong ties
to the Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK, who now has to go buy their hoods from Timu,
I think, because they don't have funding from the SPLC anymore. But they have been found to be
laundering money and actually redirecting it to these groups for,
obviously, the cause of creating more false incidents of racism so they could exploit it for
monetary gain and not to mention for gun control. Because if they could paint us all out to be
white supremacist racists, then they could easily... sell gun control to the rest of the public.
Well, you don't want these white supremacist racists having guns now,
do you? We need these strong gun control laws. Oh, I'm sorry. Strong gun safety laws.
Well, it's funny. All of these SPLC, what should I say?
Some of their support has been thrown heavily behind universal background checks,
assault weapons bans, red flag laws, and high capacity magazine bans. Yeah,
they have partnered up with Everytown for Gun Safety and also other leftist groups that are,
you know, really... striving to disarm the American public, but it seems they've been caught now.
They are now the Jussie Smollett of nonprofit organizations, and they have taken one on the chin,
especially if you read some of the most recent news reports about it. But anyway,
that's just the introduction. This next story is a shining example of why I hate that fallacious,
in common use, false doctrine. that sprang from the Heller decision.
Oh, but Royce Heller was a win. What? No, no, it really wasn't. It might have been a minor win,
but it was a huge loss that definitely counterbalanced whatever win it may have been.
And the title of this article I'm going to reference by Luke McCoy is titled 11th Circuit Upholds
Federal Machine Gun Ban Rules Second Amendment Does Not Protect Automatic Weapons.
Oh, yeah. I'll dig it to this. Well, I do know. They're constitutionally dyslexic.
Anyway, this title could easily be subtitled Why the Heller Decision Was More of a Loss Than a Win
for the Second Amendment. So here's the article. Of course, generously interspersed with commentary
from yours truly. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. has upheld the federal ban
on machine guns, ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of fully
automatic weapons or conversion devices that turn semi-automatic firearms into machine guns.
Gee, something tells me they must have disregarded the text and history standard,
no?
The opinion, issued April 21st, 2026, affirms the conviction of Max...
a Florida man, indicted for knowingly possessing a machine gun conversion device in violation of 18
U.S.C. Statute 922-0, Paragraph 1. Chief Judge William Pryor authored the opinion,
joined by Judges Brasher and Abudu. Mr. Alcinat had pleaded guilty after the Southern District of
Florida denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. According to the court's opinion,
he stipulated that the government could have proven he knowingly sold three machine gun conversion
devices to an undercover officer. So what they're saying is because he pled guilty,
he made that stipulation that he thought they could have proven that. The district court sentenced
him to 24 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. By the way,
don't ever plead guilty. No, because all you're doing is saying, yeah, you ought to write and I'm
wrong. You're not wrong, Mr. Alcinat. On appeal, Alcinat argued that Section 9220 is
unconstitutional as applied to adult citizens with no felony convictions. The 11th Circuit rejected
that argument. Well, here's the text of 9220, okay? 1. Except as provided in paragraph 2,
it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.
Well, that right there proves that it's unconstitutional as far as Judge Royce is concerned,
okay? Arms means arms for war. I don't know how in the world you can tell me machine guns are not
made for warfare. Of course they are, and we have a right to them. This subsection does not apply
with respect to a a transfer to or by a possession by or under the authority of the United States.
In other words, the United States government still has the right, but you people don't.
You see the transfer of power there simply by the stroke of a pen. or any department or agency
thereof, or a state or a department agency or political subdivision thereof.
Oh, those are lawful transfers, but not to individuals.
Any lawful transfer, it does not apply to any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machine gun
that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect. Well,
as far as I'm concerned, this entire section, along with the rest of the text, is totally
unconstitutional. So the court's reasoning in this was Judge Pryor,
according to this article, leaned heavily on the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of
Columbia v. Heller. Yes, he sure did.
Now you understand, you probably already knew, why I hate... the Heller decision in the in common
use doctrine, which is absolutely false on its face. Why did he not lean heavily on the text and
history standard of Bruin? Oh, that was a rhetorical question, of course. I'll tell you why.
He knew the Heller decision would give him the excuse he needed to rule against Mr.
Alcinaut and the Constitution. And he knew very well that the Bruin practice,
the Bruin principle would have shot down his totally constitutionally repugnant opinion.
That ruling held that the Second Amendment, quote, does not protect those weapons not typically
possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Yeah, that was quoted in this decision.
That ruling is wrong. That is absolutely wrong. The Heller decision,
as far as that was concerned, was totally and absolutely wrong. Where do you get this crap?
Well, unless it's commonly used. We're going to blow that out of the water in just a minute.
The Heller opinion also stated that it would be quote-unquote startling to conclude federal
restrictions on machine guns might be unconstitutional and that weapons most useful in military
service such as M16 rifles, may be banned. Show me that in the text in History of the Second
Amendment. The 11th Circuit found that nothing in the Supreme Court's more recent decisions in the
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin or United States v. Rahimi changed that
analysis. Oh, you know why they found nothing? You know why they found nothing in Bruin that
changed their analysis? because they refused to look for it.
They disregarded it completely in its entirety. Both opinions reaffirmed that the Second Amendment
protects weapons in common use while allowing bans on quote-unquote dangerous and unusual weapons.
Okay, where in the text of the Second Amendment did they find that? A well-regulated militia,
in other words, military organization made up of the people themselves, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
unless they're not in common use. Does your Constitution say that?
Anybody else's copy of the Constitution say that? Yeah, I know that was a rhetorical question too.
That tells me that text right there, the Second Amendment, that all arms useful to the waging of
warfare are covered by the text of the Second Amendment, whatever arms they may be.
Yes, M16s, M4s, M203 grenade launchers,
the squad automatic weapons, .50 caliber Ma-Deuce, the fully automatic John Browning machine gun
that has enjoyed service for more than 100 years. Yeah, we have the right to those.
We have the right to mount them on top of our freaking Humvees, or on top of our armored personnel
carriers, or have them as a secondary weapon on top of our M1A1 Abrams tanks.
The historical context was cited by the court. This panel also pointed to the historical record
surrounding machine gun regulation. Why did you look at the historical record of that and not the
historical record of the Second Afrique Amendment? According to the opinion,
handheld machine guns like the Tommy Gun entered the civilian market after World War I and were
quickly adopted by criminals. I see. So the free exercise of our right to keep and bear military
arms is totally contingent upon what evil men might do with them.
Is that what you're saying? Find me some text in history for that. At least 32 states responded by
enacting anti-machine gun laws between 1925 and 1934, many of which banned possession outright.
Yeah, and that was constitutionally unlawful. None of those laws in those states were challenged at
all successfully with a constitutional review and therefore should not be allowed to stand.
Worse yet, they were the false precedents, those state laws.
that should have been, you know, drummed off the books. Those were actually,
you know how much I hate false precedents, but that's what they were. They were the false
precedents that the federal government leaned on when it enacted the NFA, just like this judge
leaned on the Heller decision. Also, by the way, think about this.
You know there were 15 states within the Union that allowed slavery just before the Civil War?
Would that make it legal today? Oh, if you're talking about the past unconstitutional laws being
allowed to stand sets a rightful precedent somehow, well, you know what? Slavery should be
reinstituted. Now, of course, I'm saying that tongue-in-cheek. Slavery was an absolutely satanic
practice, and I would never be part of it, and I would probably go hunt down slave owners and hang
them.
bad, false precedents and say, well, they did it so we can do it too. That's why I hate precedents
like this one we're actually reading about right now. Congress followed in 1934.
Yeah, they followed. All right. They followed a bad precedent. Followed in 1934 with the National
Firearms Act, which imposed a $200 tax. on machine guns and required federal registration.
In 1986, Congress enacted Section 9220 as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act,
my backside, which generally prohibits civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after that
date. In other words, 1986. How did that protect our rights then? I'm just curious. And by the way,
What were they basing this on? I mean, think about this.
Are machine guns that were made after 1986 more lethal and more dangerous than all the ones built
prior thereto? I trow not. By the way, you can thank the NRA for supporting the Hughes Amendment
that gave us that 1986 cutoff date. Yes, thank you, NRA.
Roy, man, you beat up on the NRA. They're our friends. No, no, no, no.
No, they have done many things that are pro-Second Amendment, but they've also done many things
that were not. If you're going to be duplicitous like that, I want no part of you.
And that's how I feel about the NRA. When my membership lapsed, God knows how many years ago,
I... swore I'd never renew it, and I'm keeping to that promise. I really am.
Unless they have a total change of heart and go all in on the Second Amendment and try to undo all
the crap they did, maybe I might get behind them again. But that's going to take a few years,
I'll tell you that right now.
The court noted that more than 35 jurisdictions strictly regulate machine gun possession today,
with at least 13 states and the District of Columbia banning nearly all private ownership. So what?
So what? Why didn't they note the text in history of the Second Amendment instead of noting all
these other things that they could lean on as an excuse to do what they did and to come up with
this idiotic, constitutionally vile decision? I mean,
why use this? Well, everybody else is doing it, so it must be okay. Why are you going to use that
approach? I thought you guys were legal, you know, scholars or something.
Why lean on everything but the actual text and history of the Second Amendment?
And by the way, where is the bloopity blank in SCOTUS? Where are they at in all these erroneous,
fallacious rulings? Yeah, I heard the crickets too.
With this ruling, the 11th Circuit joins a growing list of federal appellate courts that have
upheld section 9220 against Second Amendment challenges, including the 3rd,
4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th circuits. In other words,
they are following along with those fallacious precedents. And by the way,
There are multiple court rulings in our history that once upheld slavery, but that doesn't sanctify
that satanic practice. I tell you what, disarming the people and putting them more and more at the
mercy of the government, that is also a satanic practice. Yeah.
The court also rejected Alcinat's argument that his status as a non-felon citizen should change
the outcome. Because Alcinat raised what the court called a quasi-facial challenge,
he needed to show that no set of circumstances existed under which Second 9220 could be
constitutional. The panel found that standard unmet.
Tell you what, how about all of you also vaunted and wise members of the 11th Circuit, show me
which part of 9220 is actually constitutional, huh? The only portion of 9220 that could even
possibly survive a Second Amendment challenge is the prohibition against somebody who is an alien
and who is unlawfully or illegally in the United States, bans them from having a gun.
or somebody admitted under a non-immigrant visa, or somebody who has renounced their citizenship.
That's the only portion I can see in 9220 that might actually,
I don't know if you call it constitutional, but certainly be justified. Yeah, and of course,
if we're dealing with people who are in our country illegally or here who are not citizens,
it stands to reason that you don't hand them firearms. You know, just for the preservation of the
people that they walk amongst? What does this mean for lawful gun owners?
Well, I'll tell you what it means. It means yet another vile anti-rights precedent has been set by
yet another constitutionally dyslexic court of appeals. This ruling does not affect the rights of
Americans to own commonly used firearms for self-defense, sport, or lawful purposes.
Yes, it sure as heck does. Our military commonly uses fully automatic weapons,
as do also a lot of federal agencies. They're commonly kept and carried by citizens in uniform and
other citizens who wear badges, so they're also acceptable for all the other citizens,
too. Why do we have this special class of people that can fully exercise their Second Amendment
rights, but only because they're government? controlled people.
The Second Amendment remains a fundamental civil right that protects the ability of law-abiding
citizens to keep and bear arms in common use, including handguns, rifles, and shotguns.
Well, that's not what the text of the Second Amendment states. Where in the world do you find those
words in Second Amendment in common use? Does this mean we're only allowed to use speech that is in
common use? Does this mean we may only attend church denominations that are in common use?
Are we only allowed to watch news programs that are in common use?
Are reporters only allowed to craft reports that are in common use?
Does this mean we can only petition our government for a redress of grievances as long as they're
in common use? In short, what I'm saying is, why is this the only right that must be limited to
only those firearms that some court ignorantly deemed to be incompetent?
The 11th Circuit's decision addresses a narrow category of weapons and devices that have been
heavily regulated at both the state and federal level for nearly a century. I don't give a flaming
rat's patootie. Slavery was in full vogue here for almost a century before we had to have an
internal war to purge it from our shores. Yeah. They've been regulated at the state and federal
level for nearly a century. Yeah, unlawfully, unlawfully regulated. And no state or federal
government had any right to regulate the arms. Where do people get the idea in the text of the
Second Amendment that the government has the right to regulate firearms? The well-regulated
portion of the text of the Second Amendment is talking about well-trained militia.
Yes, that is, we the people have a right to train with our arms. And by the way, I think that's
also a duty. So you should learn to be as proficient as possible with your firearms.
Where do you get this crap that, you know,
it was regulated for almost a century, so it must make it right. No, get your butts back to the
text in history standard. The article finishes with, uh, For responsible armed citizens,
the core protections recognized in Heller, Bruin, and Rahimi remain intact. No, they blippity
-blank and do not. What are the core protections? The core protections are the right of the people
to keep and bear arms suitable for warfare and the right of the people to be unimpeded and
unmolested by their government while doing so. Those are the core protections. The broader legal
landscape continues to move in favor of recognizing the Second Amendment as the individual,
fundamental right it has always been.
I have a word for that, and you can find that out in a pasture. Courts across the country are
applying the text and history framework established in Bruin to strike down overreaching
restrictions in common firearms, magazines, and carry rights. No, they're obviously not,
Mr. Author. Especially considering that the court in this case absolutely ignored the text in
history standard. This is what pisses me off about this in common use standard or dangerous and
unusual. I don't find that crap anywhere in the text of the Second Amendment or in the writings of
our founders. Our founders plainly said they wanted the people to be armed with the same weaponry
that our government has. Oh, you think everybody should have an F-15?
Yeah, if they can afford it. Yeah, if they learn how to fly it. I have no problem.
I already trust my fellow citizens to fly those things.
They do so in uniform. Why should I not trust them to do it when they come out of the military?
Or if they teach other people how to fly them, I would trust them too.
Yeah, you can hear my frustration. I know. I feel like I'm screaming at a brick wall with these
people who claim to be so full of jurisprudence that they can tell me While ignoring the actual
text of the Second Amendment, tell me what things are allowed to be regulated. I tell you what,
I challenge any judge out there, anywhere, anytime. You want to have a debate with me? I'll just
use the text and the history of the Second Amendment. You want to debate me? Bring it on. I'll have
you on my program. I'll pay you for your freaking time. You want to debate the Second Amendment
with me? You want to debate which arms are and are not lawful for the American people? You bring
your fallacious reasoning, and I'll bring documentation, and I'll show you that you're full of
crap. And what I'm going to do is take a brief blood pressure timeout. Go get you a drink of water,
have a nibble on a sandwich. Keep it cranked up, though, here on Shooting Straight. We'll be right
back.
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've been talking in the first half about this constitutional dyslexia that seems to infect our
judiciary in this country. And, uh, I ended with a challenge,
an open challenge to any judge in this country, anywhere, anytime you want to debate the second
amendment with me, bring it baby. Uh, matter of fact, um, reach out to me at shooting straight
radio podcast at gmail.com or shooting straight radio show at gmail.com and tell me how to get
ahold of you. And I, and I'll accept your challenge. Bring that challenge on. And you accept my
challenge. I don't care which way. It's a challenge, an open challenge to any of you. Come debate
the Second Amendment with me. No, not because I am Mr. Super Joe Second Amendment. It's because I
got a brain in my freaking head and I can read plain English. That's why. Man, I tell you what,
it frosts me no end. And here's the problem with things like the Heller decision.
It created a false standard. Yeah. in common use.
Where the blippity-blank did you get that from, besides pull it out of your posterior end? Well,
here's another thing that really frosts me, because on the surface, it sounds like a good thing,
just like the Heller decision used to. Here it is. Here's a press release from Congressman Pat
Harrigan, who has introduced the Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act.
And it's designed to extend concealed carry rights to elite military veterans.
And I'm about to tell you why I don't like this. Roy, come on, man. Why would you want that?
I'm not against them exercising. their God-given constitutional right.
I just want to know why they're allowed to exercise it at that level that we're about to read
about, but the rest of us are not. Especially when we have plain text and history of the Second
Amendment plainly telling us we have the right to carry anywhere,
anytime from sea to shining sea. Here's the article. It's a press release.
And if you want to contact Mr. Harrigan's office, contact Lexi Krenich at 814-380-4408.
This press release is from April 16th. Here it is. Today,
Congressman Pat Harrigan, North Carolina 10th District, introduced the Special Operations Forces
Concealed Carry Act. Legislation that extends federal concealed carry authority.
I thought it was a right. Federal concealed carry authority to both serving and veteran special
operations forces whose firearms training and marksmanship standards match or exceed those of
retired law enforcement officers. Okay, stop right there.
I have seen many of you. retired law enforcement officers shoot.
I have yet to meet any of you that could come close to shooting even halfway good as I do or the
guys that I train with, the regular Joe citizens who never served behind a badge or in uniform,
but they could smoke any one of you faster than a blunt at a Snoop Dogg concert.
I'm telling you what, some of you, matter of fact, when I used to work at the American Police Hall
of Fame as a range safety officer, there were two guys came in there to do their Leosa research and
I'm sitting there looking at one of them from outside the range looking through the window because
there was another guy already on the range and I see this guy number one handling a gun behind the
firing line took it out of the case and was standing there facing his buddy to his left pointing
his gun at his friend flagging him badly and holding it there yeah I come running out there and I
put my hand on the gun. I said, let it go. Let it go right now. Stand back. And he looked at me
like, he goes, what the blank are you doing, man? I said, I'm disarming you and I'm throwing you
off the range. What's your problem? I said, you're handling a gun behind the line,
number one. Second, you sit there pointing it at your buddy for a good four or five seconds.
Well, it's not loaded. Guess what happened when I took it to the line? and pointed it downrange and
dropped the magazine and racked the slide. Can anybody guess what happened? Yep.
A live round flew out of it. I put his gun down on the little cross table in the lane.
I picked up that round. I walked over to him and I held it out to him and I basically like,
hold your hand out. And I dropped it in his hand. I said, you take your bag up to the line.
You put your gun in your bag and you walk your butt out of here right now. Well,
I'm going to be talking to so-and-so about you. Please do. Please do. Because I've got video of
you and what you just did this entire incident. So please tell me why the rest of us lowly citizens
must be subjected to a lower...
position on the totem pole, so to speak. Oh, yes, retired officers, they may carry,
hey, I'm sorry to say, very few current active officers shoot as well as me and some of my boys do.
Yeah, I'm serious. It's crap. People, we used to have the tactical course set up every Saturday at
the American Police Hall of Fame. I remember there were two uniformed officers who walked in there.
And when they walked in, Everybody there was trying to, hey, how you doing? And those guys looked
down on us all like we were just beneath them. And they had their heads up and they're like,
you know, just the smugness about them. One of them shot two innocents.
Another one missed badly. I mean, so badly. In the tactical scoring,
the lower scores are better. I would shoot averages of 55s and 60s.
These guys walked out of there in the 300s, I kid you not, in full uniform.
And I'm thinking, you guys are protecting me and my family? Now,
Royce, you're beating up on cops. No, I'm not. I'm trying to tell you they are not better than us
when it comes to handgun or rifle skill or any other kind of firearm skill.
Very few of them, and most of them are on tactical teams, actually have the skills necessary to
shoot even close to some of me and my regular Joe citizens. No, I'm not vaunting myself and saying,
well, because I better never... No, I'm just saying, hey, me and my fellow lowly peon citizens who
did not serve in any capacity can outshoot most of you. How is it we don't get to enjoy the right
to that extent? Yeah. Oh, their firearm training and marksmanship standards,
they have to match or exceed those of retired law enforcement officers. Well, that shouldn't be too
darn difficult. Federal law, this press release continues, already trusts retired police officers
to carry concealed nationwide. Well, the Supreme Law already trusts all peaceable citizens to carry
concealed nationwide, but that God-given right gets suppressed. All the time.
And by people like you in office. And then he says that makes sense.
But it makes no sense that an active or retired SEAL or Green Beret,
someone who spent a career mastering firearms under the most demanding conditions in the world, has
no equivalent recognition under federal law, said Congressman Harrigan. Well,
actually, they do. They have the equivalent recognition known as the Second African Amendment.
Read the text. And any federal law that runs counter to the Second Amendment is an illegal law and
must be repealed or universally ignored instead. This bill,
he said, fixes that. It does not create new rights. No,
it just suppresses that of everybody else in favor of a select few. It doesn't create new rights or
weaken any safeguard. It simply extends an existing proven framework to the warriors who have
earned it more than anyone. How many of y'all cringed when those last words were read there?
Are you trying to say the rest of the citizenry hasn't earned that right in spite of a founding
document that we call the supreme law? Saying that we do have the right,
we didn't have to freaking earn it. Yeah, that's a right that we own by nature of our citizenship,
our existence as American citizens. It is our right. You don't get to tell us,
well, only if you served in this capacity can you do that and carry from sea to shining sea. Oh,
we know the Second Amendment says this or that, but there's precedents that say we can infringe
that.
Ooh, yeah. Sean Williamson, executive director of Atlas Rescue,
made this comment about...
How?
If all they're doing is carrying firearms, they're talking about this to people who have left the
service, okay? Unless they've been hired to go and actually fight these human trafficking
organizations, enabling us to more effectively bring that expertise to missions that protect the
vulnerable, you mean like Second Amendment rights, and dismantle trafficking networks.
Well, I tell you what, there's plenty of us regular Joe and Jane citizens that can shoot well
enough to do that, too. You want to call on us? Oh, that's right. We're beneath you.
The Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act, amends 18 U.S.C.
section 926C, the statute that currently grants concealed carry authority to qualified retired law
enforcement officers. No law can grant concealed carry authority.
The Supreme Law already granted it to also cover qualified special operators.
Eligible veterans will receive permanent nationwide concealed carry authority,
almost like that that the Second Amendment bequeaths, with no annual firearm requalification
requirement, while remaining fully subject to all existing federal firearm restrictions.
No federal firearm restrictions are lawful under the Second Amendment. Mr.
Harrigan. The bill covers honorably discharged service members from pay grades E-5 to E-9,
W-1 to W-5, or O-1 to O-10 with verified service in Army Special Forces,
the 75th Ranger Regiment, Delta Force, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps Scout Snipers.
So I guess you grunts, the rest of you grunts lose out on this. Reconnaissance Marines.
Oh, there's a few more. I'm sorry. MARSOC Operators. Okay, what about just the lowly infantry
grunts? You know, the guys that eat concertina and piss napalm?
Huh? And Air Force Combat Control, Pararescue,
Special Reconnaissance, TACP, whatever it is,
and Special Operations Weather.
Okay. The translation of that? The rest of you service members haven't earned this special right,
and you lowly little peons who never served definitely have not earned it.
You know, last I checked, all service members, ostensibly,
were fighting to uphold and defend everyone's rights to keep and bear arms, but you only want to
grant this full Second Amendment power to a select few.
The legislation also directs the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to
establish a photographic identification program within 180 days of enactment.
It requires the Department of Justice to issue guidance to law enforcement agencies nationwide
ensuring uniform recognition of qualifying credentials. Well,
how about... We just simply enforce the Second Amendment. How about we enforce the Second Amendment
and we issue that same guidance you're talking about to all law enforcement agencies nationwide to
ensure that same quote-unquote uniform recognition of the rights these service members fought to
protect.
Congressman Harrigan is urging his colleagues to support the Special Operations Forces Concealed
Carry Act and honor the service of America's most elite warriors. Well,
how about Congressman Harrigan urge his colleagues to support the right of the entirety of the
people to keep and bear arms without government permission? and honor your oath to uphold and
defend the supreme law, Mr. Harrigan. How about you do that? You see,
arms, war arms, military arms are always about power.
The founders wanted the people to be empowered to the extent that they could defend themselves
against literally their own government. Their writings are saturated with that thought.
Those people that are armed have the power to speak freely.
They have the power to travel freely because they have the ability to defend themselves against any
and all threats of violence, and that includes especially government violence. The Second Amendment
and the free exercise of the rights protected therein are only threats to criminals and people with
elitist or divinity complexes. and who possess the satanic desire to rule over other people.
Keeping and bearing arms is power. It's political power for the people.
The power that helps them keep their government in check when it attempts to operate outside of the
distinctly and strictly worded confines of the Constitution. It is rightful power.
It is justified power. It's what keeps in check. Evil men with ambitions,
whether it's the street thug or those who always seem to gravitate towards positions of service
that they wrongly assume to be positions of power. Because the founders knew what they were doing.
They did not want evil men running our country. They didn't want evil men preying upon us in
darkened streets either. They wanted the people to be the supreme power.
of this country, and that's why they wrote the Constitution in the manner that they did.
Simply follow the text and the history, and this is glaringly clear.
Stay in contact with your reps. Stay armed up. Stay trained up. Make sure you've got plenty of
beans, bullets, and bandages. And never forget, incoming rounds always have the right of way.
Royce out.