Anti-gun Politicians Aim for Private Property Gun Ban

[@buckfutter99]

Why are public servants worried about private property?

[@stetonwalters574]

Does anyone else smell that it's the sweet sweet smell of desperation by the anti-gunners

[@Daddy5444]

There are SEVERAL DECISIONS from the SCOTUS that STATES the LEOs have NO DUTY to PROTECT CITIZENS as an INDIVIDUAL and ONLY as a WHOLE SOCIETY!!! That LEAVES PERSONAL PROTECTION on the PERSON and NOT the Governments HIRED LACKIES!!! I am NOT Against the Police but THEY NEED to RETURN to the ENTRY STANDARDS from the 60s and 70s!!! www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html _________________________________________________________________ www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/92/542/ U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 3. The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States. 6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105) “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262) "The laws/rules that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

[@rkba4923]

If it's OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR COMMERCE, it's NO LONGER simply Private Property!!! It's the "law of the land," NOT just, "government owned land"!!!

[@richb.4374]

The only restrictions that are needed are restrictions on the laws tyrannical politicians pass into law. Any law that violates our constitutional rights should be removed along with the tyrants who signed it into law.

[@ronhunt9396]

Never been to NY and never will visit

[@BigTomInTheBasement]

Yeah but we should fight for everyone's rights not just the people in our state. Bc these crazy a-holes will take it national if they can.

[@BigTomInTheBasement]

Yeah but we should fight for everyone's rights not just the people in our state. Bc these crazy a-holes will take it national if they can.

[@robertharing7031]

I totally agree with both you gentlemen but I have been to NY and I carry a vision in my head of a big city with a lot of lights that both looked and smelled like a giant toilet!! My Daddy told me in the early 70s that New York State had horrible horrible restrictions, But Big Tom is right about sticking together because they are trying to snipe us a state here and a city there

[@albertsnow8835]

Politicians must be really up to no good to want to disarm American Citizens!

[@dutchmanoutdoors7212]

The oral arguments went very well. I am surprised he didn’t rule at the bench. Part of the issue was NY was asking for a 3 business day grace period before ruling on the TRO. The judge seemed very 2a supportive.

[@shareefk9039]

Was it streamed?

[@dutchmanoutdoors7212]

@@shareefk9039 no. No electronic devices allowed in the courtroom.

[@ernestclements7398]

They're going to keep it up until they outlaw all hunting on both state lands and private property, as well as all target shooting on private outdoor ranges which would of course lead to the presumption, that no one needs a firearm to participate in these activities, so why not just ban all possession period.

[@BigTomInTheBasement]

They would, if they could. To reverse Bruen they will need to pack the SCOTUS or take over the legislative and executive branches for decades by cheating.

[@robertharing7031]

I don’t think I will ever live in a world where I couldn’t shoot my firearms on my private property! lol

[@Vapourwear]

Except hunting and target shooting (in se) have nothing to do with the well-regulated militia.

[@dmichaelbruce2819]

We should launch a campaign calling these laws out for what they are... As "Fish in a Barrel" Laws..

[@ernestclements7398]

One problem with New York's New " sensitive places bill is that it outlaws firearms at State Historical sites as well as National Historical sites such as Fort Ticonderoga, and Saratoga Military Park! It's beyond overeaching, and completely ridiculous as it also includes summer camps that formerly could offer riflery( and yet they say they support " proper training")

[@MrJohnny5555]

State has no authority over federal land...you are right sir.

[@jamierichardson5789]

The current law does not allow Military reenactments, or military funerals, where 21 gun salutes are used. The Governor did proclaim that those were legal, but the law is stated otherwise. They did all9w concealed carry for the recent NYS gun show, at the state fairgrounds. This same building is illegal to carry any other time of the year.

[@DIEGhostfish]

Wait I thought private land could opt out.

[@johnb3616]

Good luck with that government cant tell a private land owner what to do on their own land

[@daviddean952]

They can not make churches prohibited places. That is state interference in a churches internal policies and beliefs

[@Daddy5444]

There are SEVERAL DECISIONS from the SCOTUS that STATES the LEOs have NO DUTY to PROTECT CITIZENS as an INDIVIDUAL and ONLY as a WHOLE SOCIETY!!! That LEAVES PERSONAL PROTECTION on the PERSON and NOT the Governments HIRED LACKIES!!! I am NOT Against the Police but THEY NEED to RETURN to the ENTRY STANDARDS from the 60s and 70s!!! www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html _________________________________________________________________ www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/92/542/ U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 3. The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States. 6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. ___________________________________________________________________ “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105) “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262) "The laws/rules that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

[@stephansherman904]

True on that point

[@Kyle-sr6jm]

Weapons are part of my religion.

[@Daddy5444]

@@Kyle-sr6jm Mine Too!!! I NEVER LEAVE Home without being ARMED!!!

[@jimbro650]

Thanks Cam for the work you do 👍🇺🇸🗽

[@davidhandyman7571]

Sensitive places" should only be where heightened security is in place. That would be metal detectors and other screening procedures and conspicuous armed security/police. If a place does not have heightened security, how can it be a "sensitive place"?

[@davidnicholas7516]

I keep saying, they're stalling. These laws get passed, there's a lawsuit. Months later they get a ruling overturning their law, but there's an injunction that allows the law to continue being enforced. There's an appeal, and it gets kicked up to a district court, then an appeals court, then the SCOTUS. Meanwhile they're hoping for a vacancy on the SCOTUS. One of the older justices retires or dies, or another more competent nut than that guy who attacked Kavanaugh does something violent and they get a court more understanding of their position. If they replace one of the conservatives, I'm sure they think they can twist the arm of a certain Chief Justice and work themselves forward to a "broad consensus" 5-4 majority.

[@jackieeastom8758]

Hmmm‽ Kinda defeats the definition of “Private” property DONT it!

[@kurnx]

To your recidivism report, Alabama definitely does have issues with locking up and keeping locked up repeat criminals and violent offenders. Within the last year locally a 19 year old girl was murdered by an 18 year old who was out on bond for another murder charge and attempted murder charge. I myself have been trying to get a neighborhood drug addict held for his crimes for nearly 15 years now, repeated thefts, threats to the lives on neighbors, grand theft auto numerous times, stealing firearms from my fathers house, and the kicker is he's been caught red handed pawning the guns, driving the stolen vehicles and yet still in all this time has spent less than two weeks in jail. It's absurd, but our politicians, DAs, and law enforcement just don't seem to care and let all kinds of mess continue instead of holding these sorts of people in jail for the safety of our communities.

[@hawkshadowoseanacy5171]

I'm frankly curious if hockole's gun policies don't violate the prohibition of having to house soldiers. Their law has defined PRIVATE PROPERTY as the government having a right to forbid lawful activity. You can't carry a gun even on your own property?

[@meesoedontask5562]

It's time these Judges step up the heat themselves... Be straight forward... IF YOU FAIL TO MAKE A CASE AS TO WHY THE RESTRICTIONS ARE NEEDED... THEN EXPECT JAIL TIME AND POSSIBLE DISBARRING IF APPLICABLE AND EXPECT A HEFTY FINE... IF it goes beyond the ORIGINAL COURT CASE... Then the MILITARY HAS THEIR HANDS FULL WITH HANGINGS FOR TREASON.

[@richardbaginski]

Mich, I'm glad that you mentioned schools. I was a substitute teacher for a local charter school here in AZ. As you are aware, most schools are "Gun Free". However, most of these "Gun Free" schools have very laxed security procedures. Any Black Hat can walk in and have a field day massacring students, teachers, adm. etc. If a teacher is a qualified gun owner, why can't the teacher carry their weapon. Or, why can't the schools hire retired police and/or military to protect the people associated with the school to protect our children. Since we are friends, I will tell you my method of school security when we have talk. Take care my friend - Rich

[@jlfjfj54e]

Noticed it was said that parks aren't sensitive places since police aren't there specifically to protect the people there. Wouldn't that be the case in many school? Many schools don't have Police there specifically to protect the students and staff.

[@dutchmanoutdoors7212]

Parks ARE sensitive places

[@rkba4923]

How many LEOs were at the Ulvade incident and did NOTHING for over an hour?!!!

[@jlfjfj54e]

@@rkba4923 correct but they weren't stationed there meaning wasn't really sensitive until something happened. And even then you are correct was over an hour without doing anything to stop the shooter.

[@pilotmiami1]

Thenks.Bro

[@jimd8008]

Thank you again for all the info

[@Daddy5444]

There are SEVERAL DECISIONS from the SCOTUS that STATES the LEOs have NO DUTY to PROTECT CITIZENS as an INDIVIDUAL and ONLY as a WHOLE SOCIETY!!! That LEAVES PERSONAL PROTECTION on the PERSON and NOT the Governments HIRED LACKIES!!! I am NOT Against the Police but THEY NEED to RETURN to the ENTRY STANDARDS from the 60s and 70s!!! www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html _________________________________________________________________ www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/92/542/ U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 3. The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States. 6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. ___________________________________________________________________ “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105) “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262) "The laws/rules that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

[@robertbrooks4413]

But hasn't the matter of being able to hunt in Federal State Parks, been settled long ago?

[@BooDamnHoo]

I disagree with schools being "sensitive". Schools are PRECISELY where concealed carry is necessity.

[@theslowwalker]

Don't children gather at home too? Doesn't one learn from walking in nature or in society in general? Can these law fakers . . . I mean makers get more ridiculous. Yes the proposals you revealed from that "politician" from Hawaii are excessive and to a great degree ludicrous. Mahalo (thank you in Hawaiian) for you video. Aloha.

[@jeffbadger462]

Why can't we just hold these politicians in contempt of the supreme court and arrest and prosecute them?

[@cfish3865]

This Alabama thing is insane

[@stephenarmstrong7354]

Text of the Amendment informed by history and tradition. From Mark W Smith/The Four Boxes Diner. Sensitive places, Government Courthouses, Government Legislative chambers, Polling places and students at school. No others.

[@bnolsen]

No on the schools. Kids used to bring rifles into school for shooting clubs. Why should our most constable targets be criminal roaming zones? Why am I less trustworthy than a criminal?

[@thelastminuteman7513]

Freeman what a great name.

[@texasrangers4]

omg you are wearing a Frisco Roughriders hat from Texas

[@coreydarr8464]

I am sure the dead guy will never bother anyone again.

[@deandepew7455]

I live in upstate n.y. I was informed today that if I want to buy a semi auto rifle I first have to have my pistol permit amended to include semi auto rifles what a bunch of bullshit

[@Hibbie2963]

Can not designate Churches, Separation of Church & State!

[@billbeam8069]

Good video Cam

[@mrfrogg46able]

appurtenance

[@samadams6487]

The list of sensitive places in the US Supreme Court ruling violates its own ruling. It doesn't meet text tradition in history. I'm a little confused on that. I don't recognize any sensitive areas.

[@Vapourwear]

In what jurisdictions are you licensed to practice law?

[@samadams6487]

@@Vapourwear I don't practice law I am simply saying I don't recognize sensitive locations. That's simple. But a simple reading of the recent US Supreme Court ruling says in plain language that the only test for whether or not a gun control law is allowed to exist, and really that was Justice Clarence Thomas teasing the bad guys essentially in government, because there are no gun control laws that can possibly be lawful under the recent ruling because, according to the ruling, the only test is the text, tradition in history. Since there is no tradition in history of any type of restriction that you could possibly imagine with the possible exception of courthouses but you could actually bring them in you just check them in but they didn't stop you from walking in with them, in any event there are several contradictions and one of them is the fact that they allow licensing when licensing was never done in 1791 and they also allow for generally for certain sensitive places which I refuse to recognize. That's not me giving legal advice that's simply telling the world what I will and will not recognize or obey. Are we clear?

[@TheHarleywolf]

By law only the owner of said private property can ban firearms. Even in states with constitutional carry a business owner can ban weapons.

[@rangersmith4652]

If no special measures are taken to protect people in a given place, it's NOT a sensitive place. SCOTUS did not list which places are sensitive because no such list is needed; all you need is a simple public access and special protection test. Does the public have access? Is there special protection? If the first answer is yes, and the second is no, gun carry must be allowed.

[@x-calibearusallc]

Early release from prison is known as Parole. Not Probation.

[@williamkennedy3837]

Concealed carry is the norm. Business can ban the guns but need to allow won't fly.

[@thephranc]

Any place when a permit is needed to gather? That violates 1A and 2A.

[@sonnythompson2956]

Antigun-AntiAmerican.

[@midnightsailor1]

appurtenances I believe means attachments.

[@ajw6715]

A smart man said this society is wussafied. Man did he nail it.

[@robertgreen4050]

With what is going on in these blue cities around the country and most won't allow you to protect yourself because the police sure can't there is no way in hell that I would go to any of them let alone live there

[@roncrouch4090]

Hawaii "places where people are assembled for educational purposes" but a firearms safety class is an educational purpose so you can't bring a firearm there, but you need the firearm to demonstrate competency to pass the class. Catch 22 you can't possibly complete the class without breaking the law so no permit for you.

[@zeusmaster6379]

Well it’s a good thing criminals adhere to all those gun free zone restrictions not just the law abiding citizens….NOT! All gun free zones do is tell criminals where they have a safe working environment

[@ktap11thregion]

4th amendment protect people from these kind of interfering on private property namely your home.but it is a state that had been violating a lot of constitutional laws so it is no surprising anymore.

[@johnbrown4627]

What exactly is a "sensitive" area. Vague law is void on its face.

[@stephansherman904]

I seem to remember the alcohol sales restriction was attempted to be used to include the owners and staff of stores, taverns and bars. Something Yankees and Californians would think genius.

[@texasrangers4]

I haven't seen your videos in a while. not shadow banned at all

[@yaradbey552]

Yesssir

[@billstream1974]

They have to make sensitive areas as per historical.

[@dickylobster]

Classic government over reach ~~~> that's what politrix is all about.

[@TheCharlesAtoz]

Why isn't this channel growing? Does it get promoted?

[@thephranc]

nope. its shadow banned.

[@u0010002]

Would love to hear a bit more about Goldstein v Hochul as well…. I ran across that today, and the complaint is well done. No GOA, NYSRPA or other big 2A groups are involved…. But I think this one will have some teeth! It’s attacking the Church & Religious observances places restrictions on 2A and 1A grounds.

[@Daddy5444]

There are SEVERAL DECISIONS from the SCOTUS that STATES the LEOs have NO DUTY to PROTECT CITIZENS as an INDIVIDUAL and ONLY as a WHOLE SOCIETY!!! That LEAVES PERSONAL PROTECTION on the PERSON and NOT the Governments HIRED LACKIES!!! I am NOT Against the Police but THEY NEED to RETURN to the ENTRY STANDARDS from the 60s and 70s!!! www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html _________________________________________________________________ www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/92/542/ U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 3. The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States. 6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). (State SC) “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105) “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262) "The laws/rules that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

[@neilkratzer3182]

They did layout sensitive places.These people must not have read the decision or their very mentally challenged. Also how does the state have the authority to restrict private land? They have no say so there. Maybe people need to bring class action suit against states that think they can tell people what can and can't do on private land.

[@reecewatson773]

How can democrats make your private property a gun free zone... Unless "you" mark it a gun zone??? If you mark private property as gun free zones, then your police should not be allowed to have guns???

[@jimsiress9687]

I'm gonna bet my life on my aim. Not real worried about theirs 👍 😉

[@samva777]

If the property is open to the public like say a store, then it is NOT 100% private property.

[@Normal1855]

Actually, yes it is. That's the misconception. Some people think, if you can access the property, it's considered public property. It's still private property.

[@samva777]

@@Normal1855 Wrong a store invites people into the property to buy items, once they do that they do not have 100% private property rights. This concept varies from state to state I was in law enforcement 13 years I know what I am talking about.

[@meesoedontask5562]

WE NEED MORE JUDGES LIKE THAT... In my state, we have to wait till the Criminal is in the home to shoot them or what ever we may do... I have already had to chase one idiot out of my house. They tried to get the cops involved who agreed with this judge, once you say GET OUT and they don't... Their safety is in their own hands and they are at risk of death. Instead of the cops cuffing me for going at him with a sword, they cuffed him for not following the LAWFUL ORDER to leave.

[@michaelwenk2234]

Move to GA. We have no duty to retreat (“castle doctrine”), and firearms law here is extremely favorable to homeowners.

[@dave8599]

You should be ok to carry even in a school. I recall having to walk through less than safe areas coming home from evening classes at college. I carried a tire iron. Id prefer to have a pistol.

[@dmichaelbruce2819]

There is a HUGE problem for the Gun Grabbers where Churches are concerned... And it is the FACT that Many Priests and Pastors Live on the Same Grounds that they Preach on... I have churches all over my town where the pastors home is literally on the same plot of land as the church itself... And in some denominations, those who Serve God live inside the church itself... But of course this is something that the Democrats probably haven't considered... Because even those who "belong" to a church... Never practice what the Bible Preaches.

[@vampirerevin]

How the hell can they say that PRIVATE PROPERTY is anything??? It's PRIVATE PROPERTY..... Screw them I would put big ass signs in all 4 corner's GUN'S WELCOMED, DEMOCRAT SNOWFLAKES NOT!!!

[@dutchmanoutdoors7212]

That’s what the law requires… that all private property is a restricted area and the property owner must clearly present signage to allow firearms

[@vampirerevin]

That is not legal... They can not nor have they ever in the history of this country been able to tell you what you can, or can not do on your own place, that I have ever known of..

[@dutchmanoutdoors7212]

@@vampirerevin that’s why Gun Owners of America is taking the fight to NY trying to get an injunction to stop the enforcement of the CCIA

[@mikejohnson6611]

Hi cam farmer hear let u o in colonial time if u didn’t bring your gun to church u wear fine 2 pound of tobacco look it up god bless stay safe

[@raysnapp6947]

You people need to wake up you don't ask these people you tell them you gave nothing The right didn't come from them they will take all you LET THEM TAKE the right is already your this is lawyer bullshit you start making the lawyer responsible and see just now fast the damn law will change !!!

[@frankrodriguez9697]

My old lady had an oral argument today, she won.

[@5flapjacks468]

Well, whatever happens in the near or distant future with all that's going on, make sure Jesus is your savior. Trust with confidence and understanding that Jesus removed all of your sins when He died and rose. Simple! If you need some teaching on the matter, the You Tube channel....faith cometh by hearing....has a teaching series titled, 'change of mind' which is more than able to help you understand the matter...