SCOTUS Takes a 2A Case - What next? - with Chuck Michel & Stephen Halbrook

[@TheRealGunGuyTV]

Get discounts on gear! gunguy.tv/buy-gear-at-a-discount/

[@ValiantSlothman]

This channel is super underrated. I really enjoy your content.

[@jimd8008]

Appreciate your diligence in keeping us informed

[@Truthberry]

Thank you, Joel, for this very useful conversation! Your efforts have not gone unnoticed, my brotha!

[@pauls6526]

Thank you, Joel. it was great that you were able to bring us these two speakers.

[@stevennewman4778]

Here in KY, when I see someone carrying a pistol in an OWB holster on their side in a restaurant or gas station, etc, it 1) assures me that person isn’t a criminal and 2) lets me know if someone walks in and opens fire, I won’t be the only one having to protect others from the bad guy. These states that restrict firearm ownership and restrict carrying...it’s not about public safety. It’s about people in power wanting more power and control. I’ve studied enough history to know what happens when governments disarm the citizens.

[@seanberthiaume8240]

West Virginia here and NO PERMIT required for concealed carry...

[@beetee4295]

NY gun guy here, I have a NYS “Sportsman Pistol Permit,” which limits my pistol carry to and from the range, and in the field when hunting/fishing with valid hunting license. I would absolutely be over the moon if the NY liberals are forced to eat crow along with their unconstitutional gun laws! I hope the entire country sees justice in terms of a win for our constitutional rights restored. Great video Gun Guy- you are an American hero!

[@Rainy_Day12234]

Your freedoms are at greatest risk when bureaucrats in Washington are working.

[@stevennewman4778]

I’m amused when people point out politicians on vacation or on a golf course as being a bad thing. It’s a great thing. Anytime they aren’t in DC ruining our country is a great thing.

[@stephenkowalewski8476]

Very informative conversation. Looking foward to hearing the oral arguments. Hopefully a decision will also address Reciprocity. It crazy that I cannot drive through NY legally with a valid carry permit from another state.

[@johnnygimms4523]

Joel thank you so much for these interviews. It is a can’t miss for me whenever you post these. I really appreciate what you do.

[@phichanyaungsri6340]

Thank you for the information. Please keep us updated on this case.

[@conedprepper]

2A👍live free or die trying.. land of the free and the brave!

[@9ElevenCombatVet]

Great Video! Very informative.

[@bacon-gamers]

New York here and I thank you for this info ive been wanting a pistol permit but everybody keeps telling me I won't get it they are to strict so I'm happy to hear this might change.

[@fsarfino]

Not sure how it is in your county but here in Erie (buffalo area) it's apply and get 4 people to vouch for you. Invasive background check for you and the 4 people you list to vouch for you are also background checked. Fingerprints required for you as well. CCW requires training or proof of former training like military training and they decide if you have a valid reason for it. Timeframe seems to be 6m to 1y for approval for pistol permit to be issued.

[@Tony-ex2rm]

@@fsarfino putnam is 1 year wait. 4 references background etc. For a target permit. The upgrade to full carry in practice is not being approved.

[@fsarfino]

@@Tony-ex2rm that's ridiculous in the entire process in New York state along with the safe act is a total infringement of our constitutionally protected rights

[@Hiflier35thCAG]

In Ohio, I walk into a hun shop, select the gun, fill out the federal form, wait for the NICS background check (10mins) pay for the gun and the ammo, holster and accessories that I want, and leave in less then an hour. Your being denied your rights.

[@fsarfino]

@@Hiflier35thCAG that's pretty obvious it's really the same story in any state with an extremely large city located in it be it New York, illinois, or California they write the state laws for the city & not the remainder of the state.

[@phiberoptik232]

Great discussions. Top drawer lawyers who bring great insight to 2A issues. Good stuff here. Thanks.

[@jorgeduran4960]

I'm listening in Cali! Hope this goes through. 🙏

[@donttreadonmining9146]

Thank you all for the q&a. Very interesting and informative

[@wadenixon5937]

True Patriots 🇺🇸 Much Respect 👍

[@timokeefe2126]

Thanks Joel, two great second amendment advocates for sure and I just ordered Steve’s book. Will educate me for sure. Keep up the great work

[@RunD.Ones1s]

I’ve been trying to get quality legal analysis on this and Mr. Halbrook really did an excellent job, I expect nothing less from a fellow GULC alum

[@jcx117]

Thanks for the video

[@Desperado3248]

New York is almost unique in that you cannot purchase a handgun without a permit, and the standards to carry where and when the permit is legal create a patchwork of restrictions and possible criminal penalties as well as a lifetime loss of the right, by the issuing authority, despite no commission of a crime.

[@BerryHustle]

If criminals are able to walk around with guns in there pockets and just open fire on people we as americans should be allowed to carry to protect ourselves from these people

[@rkba4923]

I know we usually cast derision on the 9th Circus, er, Circuit Court; but, in this case, I applaud them because, I believe, they have directly challenged the SCOTUS on two key points of 2A jurisprudence: 1. To what extent is there a Right to Carry outside the home?, and 2. Does the Doctrine of "prior restraints" apply to 2A jurisprudence? I don't think SCOTUS has acknowledged the "prior restraint" challenge though. They've also never directly addressed the supreme law's injunctive phrase, "shall not be infringed," as far as I've been able to determine.

[@goneracin2285]

The only reason they took it was because it is infringement either way. They won't take a real case. A law that does anything other than outlining and protecting an inherent inalienable right is unjustifiable. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant those rights and the government can't actually retract them. It recognizes those rights and defends them from a tyrannical government. That is the complete intent of the doctrine.

[@chuck_in_socal]

I hope that one day I'll be able to legally take a pistol with me when I go hiking in California wilderness areas.

[@HartponderJr]

The Irony. When you balance the illegal shootings with the lawful use of a firearm to prevent or eliminate crime statistically, the government interest to promote the lawful use would prevail hands down.

[@derek3154]

I’m not getting my hopes up about this, but I’m happy the Democrats are scarred about it.

[@aliciawarren644]

@Derek. The Question is: How will 'progressive' enclaves like California and New York react to a ruling telling them that they can no longer arbitrarily deny law-abiding subjects ( errr... _'citizens'_ ) CCWs? Most likely, by coming up with a whole new series of creative 'flaming hoops' (e.g., ridiculous training requirements, exorbitant fees, etc.) for would-be CCW applicants to jump through. 🙄

[@derek3154]

@@aliciawarren644 yes likely, doubt it would be spelled out by SCOTUS on what the requirements should be.

[@stinkymcstinkerton1854]

@@derek3154 our question will always be how the justices respond. You’d think a Ginsberg would have sided positively with a minority group such as the American Indian , but until July of 2020, she never sided with the American Indian. Kavanah also sided with the Indians in that case. So for me, it’s really up in the air and while the positivity these gentlemen have for how they think it will end up is good, I remain optimistically skeptical. Lol

[@MrVideoyoulike]

we need to figure out a wat to get this out to the people who are on the fence when it comes to the 2A. I think this would help them fall on our side of the fence.

[@fsarfino]

I sincerely hope scotus does something about the permitting process. I can see a shall issue win but then they make the permitting process almost impossible.

[@chanman6673]

First time viewer here and I loved the facts your guest laid out. I HOPE and pray iur supreme court finally stands up and acts like a supreme court should and put an end to this tyrannical government once and for all. I also wish they would tell WASHINGTON to stop buying all of the drugs they put on our streets and buying the guns to put on the street and maybe just maybe our law enforcement could do their job without a big target on their backs.

[@Stevarooni]

My wager...narrow ruling eliminating _May Issue_ restrictions on permits. If you issue carry permits, you can't require a "good reason", and that's all they're going to touch.

[@hussamgunter7381]

If it goes our way then even that is a win in my opinion. Let’s hope the Supreme Court isn’t packed by then

[@aliciawarren644]

@Stevarooni. You're probably correct. However, if that turns out to be the case, at least states like California, Hawaii, and New York will *_finally_* (and hopefully, once and for all) be forced to eliminate their arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory "good cause/special needs" requirements for issuing CCWs.

[@aliciawarren644]

@@hussamgunter7381 I doubt that 'progressive' Democrats will manage to 'pack' the court (at least not before the end of this year) provided that the filibuster remains intact. On the other hand, _if_ SCOTUS rules in favor of NYSRPA, you can bet that 'progressives' will kick their asinine little D.C./Puerto Rico statehood and court 'packing' campaigns into overdrive. Fortunately, by then, it will be close to the midterms, when we'll _finally_ have the opportunity to 'rebalance' the House and Senate again.

[@Stevarooni]

@@aliciawarren644 believe me, if so I will be very happy for them. And for the rest of us, it will put a legal fence to oppose backsliding for future legislation. It just won't make a difference for most Americans.

[@finngamesknudson1457]

@@aliciawarren644 - Note that Puerto Rico went “shall issue” last year with universal recognition of any state’s permits. Don’t know costs, process or their restrictions on when and where. I do know that anti states are likely to try to follow Puerto Rico’s other infringements - need license to purchase, two guns max per person(!!!), and ammo purchases are registered and limited to 50 rounds per year. How do they expect legal carriers to develop or maintain skills? If I lived there I would certainly purchase the “mantis” system or another dryfire multiplier - plus periodically fly to mainland for classes. When I was there, ISP blocked almost all firearms sites. Didn’t matter I was only checking prices and availability with though of ammo delivery to my Texas home - cannot see those sites at all.

[@rhugh02]

Liberty or death... Semper Fi

[@robdgonz]

How do you not have more subscribers!?

[@truckcampertraveler7369]

Shadow ban !

[@thevoyer2002]

@@truckcampertraveler7369 yep, pH UK Goof-le. These channels need to post on Bitchute or another platform.

[@SR-wz2iv]

Perhaps put a bad taste in some mouths with a fudd-like take ok a 2nd Amendment audit video. I've forgiven him for past transgressions

[@RayRay-zc2ed]

Laws to remove in California In order of importance, the handgun roster , ammo background check, 10 round mag restriction, assault weapons band, suppressor law.

[@aliciawarren644]

@Ray Ray. Truth. Unfortunately (for the subjects of the Socialist Republic of Kaliforniastan) the asinine handgun roster is exclusive (so far) to California, and hasn't been challenged in any circuit court outside the 9th. Therefore, SCOTUS probably won't grant cert on a case challenging the roster, since no 'split' (i.e., conflicting rulings) exists between multiple circuit courts on the issue. The same likely applies to the ammo background check requirement. However, it might be a different story when it comes to magazine capacity restrictions, cosmetic feature-based semi-auto bans, and suppressor restrictions, given that those infringements impact *_multiple_* states.

[@finngamesknudson1457]

@@aliciawarren644 - Maybe time to make a local ordinance limiting purchases specified models in a friendly state. Push it to a friendly circuit and then we’d have split circuits meaning scotus could get involved. Unfortunately most friendly states have state preemption and too risky to attempt this in any less friendly environment. I suspect most, like me, are not generous enough to take such risks from r the benefit of California.

[@yamahapiano]

Why do we have to sue to keep a fundamental right? This stuff ought to be struck down immediately when introduced, supreme court review?

[@chillios2222]

You have the perfect radio voice

[@rkba4923]

Strict scrutiny is only common sense standard to apply to ALL constitutionally secured liberties. I do not agree that the Supreme Court has any lawful authority, however, to determine the scope of our fundamental, individual rights. The biggest problem we have, in this regard, is an OUTLAW JUDICIARY!

[@rogertilden790]

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE

[@G_L_S]

Is there anything we the people can do right now to help this case ?

[@justinkirschenman2232]

Grab our guns and walk into the home of every politician and "law" enforcement "officer" in this country.

[@villagecarpenter2266]

Join GOA, NRA, and any local gun owners association.

[@justinkirschenman2232]

@@villagecarpenter2266 that WILL NOT help ANYTHING if there is not an active show of arms.

[@ssswdon]

IL just had a case that determined that the foid card was unconstitutional. Basically, you have to pay to get your constitutional rights to carry firearms.

[@stevecider2228]

Rather be tried by twelve then carried by six.

[@rfjohns1]

There are a lot of people both pro and anti 2a whose livelihood depends on keeping the battle going indefinitely. Total victory would mean loss of livlihood

[@tacticalrabbit308]

All the laws before the second amendment was written where looked at and that's why the second amendment was written as it is , so that the other laws would never be applied to this country and take away our god given rights to protect ourselves and our loved ones , and as for Hawaii when they became a state of this country they where then subject to our laws and no one else's so all those laws that those judges pulled up are not applicable to their case , the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

[@vromogata3807]

Scotus is very close to the Greek word Scotos which means darkness... Coinsidence??

[@gusm2752]

It’s also close to the Greek word SKATA.

[@tonydiego5827]

What’s next? There is a high chance that we will lose more of our Second Amendment rights from this Supreme Court.

[@dmitryadamenko6518]

Your last part of 2A where it speaks about firearms means nothing without first part. If there would be a well organized militia at every neighborhood, than none had ever tried to infringe on carry of a firearm

[@MrDLRu]

The best outcome for every American's 2nd Amendment rights, is that they rule a state can prohibit the concealed carry of firearms.

[@rfjohns1]

The Founders have zero weight in the eyes of the current Democrats.

[@mfmayes]

my prediction..we will lose in the supreme court..they have proved they don't like 2a cases

[@johncooper1107]

Don't hold your breath, can't trust Roberts

[@rfjohns1]

Since Heller, Roberts has been compromised. I wouldn't count on him at all

[@jameslockhart8250]

Our government will never trample on our rights , it just critiques them because they don't feel that we need them. I think any elected official should do prison time if they make a law especially through executive action and it gets ruled through the Supreme Court that they were infringing on our constitutional rights, maybe they will think twice then

[@mikielyke]

Shall not be infringed, duh.

[@villagecarpenter2266]

This just in the news...NYC Mayor candidate wants to carry a gun? Go figure!

[@mclovinit8639]

What is next. Likely we loose our Right to Carry guns

[@AntAntL]

I've said it when this case was announced, and I'll say it again. This case is weak and limiting in scope. This case will not be ground breaking or revolutionary. Hoping for a favorable ruling, because a win is a win. However, this case is limiting in scope as it deals with only conceal carry, but not open carry. It only deals with one step in the permitting process, and not the entire permitting process. Oh well

[@aliciawarren644]

@Legit Ant. Truth. For instance, there's nothing in this case that will prevent 'progressive' enclaves like California and New York from simply 'raising the bar' for prospective CCW applicants (e.g., ridiculous training requirements, exorbitant fees, etc.) to the point where any positive ruling is effectively rendered moot.

[@rsvette99]

SHALLNOT BE INFRINGED....How much clearer can you be?

[@bacon-gamers]

They need to stop treating us like we are enemies. Why take Americans guns away? In my eye we as a country are that much stronger. Not everyone is gonna get along in this country but most of the time criminals get guns easier than a law abiding citizen who goes through a process. At the end of the day there are more normal people than there are bad. But if the bad people have a better chance of being armed, your gonna loose more good than bad. I say let guns have there freedom. No other country that has disarmed their people has prospered.

[@56Spookdog]

👍👍

[@scottscheuerman6170]

Call Rado

[@scottscheuerman6170]

Colorado is the next comiefornia they are going to legislate us to death now they are wanting to make policies that take second amendment rights over misdemeanors which involved things that ranchers have to do with there animals in which they they would restrict people right to have firearms for 5 years

[@Corvetjoe1]

If they rule against the 2A then the free states like SD, ND, TX, WY, , etc. will pass a law that requires resident with minimum exceptions to own at least one rifle and one pistol and maybe issue vouchers to purchase them. I hope! Of course you already can have as many guns as you want in the free states anyway. 😀

[@finngamesknudson1457]

So you say. There are a bunch of guns I want and cannot afford - thus I cannot have all the guns I want! Of course if I could afford them I could legally have a vault of Barrets (50bmg), along with a few dozen MSRs, shotguns and hundreds of pistols. Wouldn’t actually want that (or at least not all of it), but nice to know I could do so legally.

[@rushimfamilyrushin8679]

They are censoring the words from your guests

[@carlholttum9150]

Why do we have to have a permit to bear arms, when it is a right under the constitution. Maybe we need to start getting a permit to the first amendment freedom of speech, to stop the foul language, and things people say about each other. May be the gun haters would like that too.

[@maxmccain8950]

I’m sorry, I stole your term “always gun”.

[@rushimfamilyrushin8679]

Now my comments are being censored

[@aliciawarren644]

@Rushimfamily Rushin. Welcome to "ScrewTube," home of the arbitrary and capricious censorship/shadowban bots.

[@rogertilden790]

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE