Supreme Court 8-1 Order Shatters Immediate "Assault Weapon" & Magazine Ban Hopes!

In this video I break down some important news today out of the Supreme Court in various Second Amendment cases!
BlackoutCoffee: www.blackoutcoffee.com/armeds...
Code: "ArmedScholar" for 10% Off
🎥 Follow Me On Other Social Media 🎥
Instagram: / armedscholaryt
Twitter: / armedscholaryt
Twitch: / armedscholar
📷 My KZbin Setup 📷
Camera: (Sony A7siii) amzn.to/36YIe96
Lens: (Tamron 17-28) amzn.to/3wSPn5H
Lighting: (GVM RGB) amzn.to/3zpDfdT
Microphone: (Rode Wireless) amzn.to/3iBgnkU
Camera Stand: (Broadcast Boom) amzn.to/2V7meWV
Legal Disclaimer: This content is not intended to provide any legal guidance or advice. Although I am a licensed attorney I am not providing any legal advice through this video. If you have any legal questions please contact a licensed professional in your area to address your specific issues.
DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. This helps support my channel and allows us to continue making awesome videos like this. Thank you for the support!

[@ArmedScholar]

Sign up for the Armed Scholar Newsletter: www.armedscholar.com/contact Support the channel by liking the video and subscribing!

[@matrixlone]

The only assault weapons are human beings

[@r.d.9399]

Our Constitutional Rights should NOT be different in different states.

[@Timothy-Wess]

I tried to subscribe to your channel, but the only option it gives me; is to unsubscribe🤷‍♂️

[@RoyDMorris]

I appreciate your content and willingness to keep us up to date with all 2A cases. Quick question, where do we stand with pistol braces? If I have a PCC, can I attach a stock or is this still something that requires a tax stamp or an SBR application?

[@rrshier]

@@r.d.9399 Interestingly, that is address in Article 4 section 2 LOL. "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of Citizens in the several states". I think we tend to ALSO FORGET that line!!!

[@johnyesme5044]

If the government tells you that you don't need it, immediately go out and buy two.

[@derrickrr5516]

Or three

[@rockinfaceplant0000]

Or as much and as many as you can afford!!

[@jaceryan3708]

And if they tell you it’s mandatory, give them the finger

[@Sturgeonmeister]

The civilians ownership of firearms, also used by the Military, has been a part of America's history since the Pilgrims.

[@tomaskren8686]

That's why I think the "military use" test is stupid. Minutemen were called to battle and were required to bring their own arms which means today I need to have, at a minimum, the weapons issued to a standard rifleman be protected and available to include the magazines needed to fire from. Another reason the "military use" test is stupid is because they get most their stuff from the civilian market. Hope you don't like Skilcraft pens, yup used in the military. Any brand or truck... yup military bought & used.

[@nwchrista]

@@tomaskren8686 Agreed. John Wayne bought a battleship. They 'probably' killed him for the move. Whatever the so called government possesses, we need to possess to keep them in check. If they want to remove 'arms', they can start with themselves. As long as the police and military exist and are armed, we need to be armed. And this supreme farce better be careful about their whacky ways or they'll soon find themselves under a whole different kind of scrutiny. They smelled revolution in the air during their covid vaxx decision process and rightly decided to uphold the Chevron doctrine, ...and it appeared that they were going to use the so called emergency to overrule Chevron, at the time. We stood by and let them make their move and they decided to back down. The very fact that we have guns kept even the Supreme farce in check.

[@tonyorob]

​@@tomaskren8686Yep, and the 'in common use' standard is also BS. ANY firearm is protected under the 2A, even the very rare guns.

[@MsNerdsRevenge]

Fire Arms and Heavy Machines is Mars. It is Ares and Ares is in the Bible. Why does 7 have to always balance when many forget 7 is divinity.

[@jamescook7713]

If the military and 'law enforcement" can own/use a weapon, the average citizen should also have that same weapon.

[@dannyhardesty3692]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[@americanpatriot7247]

Danny - in this case, the S.C. is waiting for these cases to get final decisions from the courts in Illinois. At that time, if the decisions are against the freedoms of the people the S.C. will review and make a judgement on those cases. In this case, injustice waited on, is final justice granted.

[@marcar9marcar972]

So I get what you’re saying but what, we’re going to encourage them to rule against us

[@troyarnold5956]

There's no decision... supreme court can only put the decision on hold longer... or wait for the decision to overturn or keep... this is the faster route

[@AMX86]

SCOTUS needs to get with and stick to a purist interp of the Consitution, CITIZENS have the Rights, NOT STATES or Feds.

[@davidpetersen329]

Now while the Court could have...but would have violated the processes.

[@IAmTheRealBill]

States do have rights. It is a key aspect of us being in a republican union.

[@user-anc123]

@@IAmTheRealBillthe constitution applies to the peoples rights not state or federal government having the right to infringe on their rights

[@grandpagun2843]

@@IAmTheRealBillnot the bill of rights

[@davidpetersen329]

@@IAmTheRealBill they do not have a right to remove constitutional rights.

[@otpyrcralphpierre1742]

I live in South Louisiana. Our government just said that we have the right to Concealed Carry, starting on July the 4th. Meanwhile, the mayor of New Orleans and the City Council are busily making rules and regulations and new "gun free zones" to infringe on these very rights.

[@joshuarichard6827]

Youve had the right since before you were born

[@rona4960]

@@joshuarichard6827 🤣🤣🤣

[@marktwain2053]

What's needed is "Politician Free" Zones.

[@theKashConnoisseur]

You know what I like best about concealed carry? The concealed part. 😉

[@221WTF]

​@@rona4960yeah you know, Inalienable rights? Do you know what that means?

[@ronaldkemp3952]

The 2A is the American permit to keep and bear arms, without restrictions.

[@jacobm2625]

Permit is too weak a word. Maybe directive or edict. Commandment, perhaps.

[@rona4960]

There is no such thing as an unlimited right

[@theKashConnoisseur]

"Shall not be infringed" has been understood to only refer to complete disarmament. There's no such thing as an unlimited right, which the Supreme Court reiterated in the recent Rahimi decision.

[@redfather5342]

Yes there is

[@williamrose7184]

The Supreme Court also once said that Black people weren’t human beings. Just because the Supreme Court says it doesn’t mean it’s correct. The founding fathers couldn’t imagine any type of restrictions on the first and second amendment that’s why they are the first and the second amendment. Clearly says shall not be infringed, that means they cannot do anything to stop us from getting said firearms… if they wouldn’t restrictions on these rights, they would’ve put it in the constitution.

[@u.s.aarchangelforgod3679]

Good Job Justice Thomas for putting swamp on notice.

[@Ghoxtfire]

yes he clearly explain why not every gun is protected by the 2a we need the ruling on that to finally start banning guns legally.

[@theKashConnoisseur]

@@Ghoxtfire The Supreme Court has already ruled that "dangerous and unusual" weapons can be regulated, but not arms "in common use". It would be extremely difficult to ban semi automatic rifles and handguns given that precedent. While you can argue that they are indeed dangerous, they are not unusual. Both must be true for outright bans to be justified. For example, the sawed-off shotguns are considered dangerous AND unusual. Their concealable nature and lack of common use combine to allow for regulations. However, under the new standards given by Bruen, I think there's an argument to make that anything considered standard issue by the military or police would be considered "under common use" for purposes of a citizen militia. And so short barreled rifle restrictions and laws around machine guns might face some challenge.

[@Ghoxtfire]

@@theKashConnoisseur well depends on the judge defining dangerous since it's not required to meet all 3 with 1 will be enough to ban it.

[@u.s.aarchangelforgod3679]

@@ardrone56 Yaa it’s called protecting the 2A Rights. Let’s get it right not far left lmfao 🤣

[@u.s.aarchangelforgod3679]

@@Ghoxtfire Hate to burst your bubble, that will never happen. Nothing but a waste of tax payers money to fight something the swamp far left Democrats will never WIN. These laws were in place before me and you. All the Democrats are doing is finding loop holes that they will never find.

[@americanpatriot7247]

Respect for the cool and thoughtful head of S.C. Justice Thomas.

[@AllAboutSurvival]

Upholding these rights protects not only our freedoms but also ensures responsible gun ownership prevails over knee-jerk legislation.

[@dwainyoung542]

You are some of that crazy …

[@CommanderShepard68]

You want your guns taken away???​@@dwainyoung542

[@joshuarichard6827]

The second amendment has secured ZERO freedom

[@haraldmarshall8424]

You sound like a communist.

[@RNagy-ke4se]

@@dwainyoung542crazy?

[@heent7972]

SO sick of the DELAY, DELAY, DELAY!!!

[@angeladangela500]

This Supreme Court has kicked the can down the road on so many issues. Kavanaugh and Barrett are total disappointments!

[@tedphips23]

Still trying to understand how my privilege to drive in any state outweighs my right to carry in any state.

[@debrasnipes7431]

It doesn’t. In 2022 the Supreme Court that you have the right to carry a firearm outside of your home. All states now allow the carrying of concealed weapon in SOME public places. SCOTUS also said, however, that the states have the right to determine and implement licensing requirements for carrying handguns for self-defense, such as fingerprinting, background checks and mental health records checks. Some states have a reciprocity agreement with other states and recognize a carry license from a neighboring states, but all do not. You can be required to obtain another license in the state other than the state in which you already are licensed. You just need to know the laws of the state in which are carrying or will be traveling to and carrying. Those laws may be significantly different than your home state.

[@angeladangela500]

Exactly!! A vehicle is no less a deadly weapon than a firearm.

[@startsontime]

Amen. Never understood how a privilege outranks a right.

[@patrickbodine1300]

...shall not be infringed.

[@byYouTube94]

and yet… 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@Eight.OfClubs]

An armed society is a polite society.

[@mikevargo5960]

I wonder how true that was in the wild west.

[@Cryptosifu]

I’m not even sure why we need a CC permit. That’s an infringement.

[@russby3554]

Justice Thomas' statement was pure fire!

[@nonconsensualopinion]

His statements are the best money can buy.

[@JamesSmith-ow5vr]

Would be nice if the SCOTUS would put a time frame on how soon all the other courts had to complete theses cases

[@VoFALT]

I don't think that's entirely prudent. These things are never set in stone.

[@MARCHOFTHESAS]

@@VoFALTthey should be

[@joeh1687]

Yes, I agree completely, the lower courts have been stalling the process and it should not be tolerated by the supreme court.

[@williamna5800]

It's just to ensure they keep us without rights half the time, then let us have our rights the other half. A game to keep both sides happy opposite the other, thus keeping us at the other side and never turn our attention to the corruption in upper ranks. This way the power stays where they like it, with themselves. The judicial system has nothing to do with our rights, or justice for any one of us. Our "checks and balances" do exists, the are used daily to keep us peons in "check" and the "balance" of power stays in the gov. hands.

[@RoyDMorris]

I’m happy with Thomas’ remarks. It is necessary for SCOTUS to clear up the definition of “arms” and what weapons are “bearable”. The “dangerous” and “unusual” terms definitely need to be clarified. These terms need to be addressed fully and clearly, ensuring the language being used can clearly withstand the changes to language over time.

[@jimsmith4151]

SCOTUS needs to grow a pair of balls and uphold the constitution as written

[@seektruthpeterman]

'Military use' is a complete pile of 💩 The Constitution does NOT include any reference to anything regarding 'military use'. Shall NOT BE INFRINGED couldn't be any clearer.

[@carlfrye1566]

The fact "militia" is included in 2A means the founders intended military use for citzens arms was an expectation.

[@Amu313]

in fact! the 2A was MEANT for us to have the same fire power as the military! the whole idea is that we, the citizens, can fight back against tyrannical governments. so we NEED the same fire power as the government... thats the SOLE purpose of the 2A.. not just for "hunting" like democrats think.. its to hold onto our freedoms from governments trying to strip that away from us, even by military force.

[@hellspyro666420]

almost all arms at the time where military arms. Every day citizens owned war ships and artillery. If im not mistaken there is a Supreme Court ruling saying military arms are protected by the 2nd amendment, so then if military arms are protected and in common use weapons then that covers basically all arms.

[@johnwalters4383]

​@@hellspyro666420Funny, the Deep State seems to not care about the SCOTUS OR THE CONTITUTION. 😢

[@bofootball30]

It clearly states " A well regulated militia" dah

[@markk4159]

Our history has always allowed citizens to possess the same general firearms as our military, from flintlocks, to leverage action rifles, single and then double action revolvers, semi auto rifles and pistols, bolt rifles and AR-15 semi auto rifle platforms since they were invented; so how can these states argue that it has changed today?

[@DoomMunkeyX]

They don't want you to be able to fight back.

[@DC-ei9vl]

First, here's my pedigree in the subject: Raised in the country around guns, knew they were all "loaded" whether they really were or not before puberty. Also knew permanently dispatching someone because of hurt feelings/pride was morally wrong. USN Gunners Mate (Guns), US Army National Guard. Now, a Remington 7400 .223 same exact thing as an AR-15 in .223. I guess one of them is just "scary looking" or something. It's always people who don't know squat about firearms trying to argue without legit documentation.

[@SDesWriter]

Because their ultimate goal is an unarmed society they can control and rule over.

[@growingup9954]

Any gun regulation is in violation of 2A. Period. How can we protect the nation from tyranny if we cannot carry or own what the military does?

[@jts0221]

The statement by justice Thomas was very promising. I live in RI and we need this win.

[@randyisaksson3301]

The second ammendment says we should have a well armed militia! How could the a r 15 not be good for militia??

[@Renaldo135]

Bless Justice Thomas. thumbs up at the Justice that actually recognizes the Bill of Rights is a living breathing part of this Countries true rights.

[@rona4960]

Thomas doesn't care as long as his rich buddy buys him a drink.

[@rebeccamead4557]

I wish Biden could remember what he put Justice Thomas through when Biden was a Senator while he playing as possibly having carnal knowledge with his babysitter, one Jill, hmm 🤔 example of blame others for what you are doing😊. Being doing it for years!!

[@fartinthewind933]

What's the point if only one of the nine agree with you? It just means you get nothing.

[@nonconsensualopinion]

@@rona4960 Bingo. Whether you agree or disagree with any one of his decisions, he's a compromised hack that has been proven to be taking bribes. You better just hope his handlers want the same things you want.

[@davidnewton6441]

Kicked the can down the road.

[@jerrymatthews1053]

That’s the way I feel about it too 😕

[@user-wc3lj4uz5q]

"Shall not infringe" is pretty clear.

[@philthy4219]

Sue em all Anthony

[@ArmedScholar]

🇺🇸👍

[@Mr.Constitutionalist427]

Every weapon ever invented are arms period, Shall Not Be Infringed.

[@jakejordan7775]

Alright, so you're cool with some crackhead down the street owning a nuke?

[@tvbtvb5124]

So is the NUCLEAR BOMB. Should you have one in your glove compartment?

[@Mr.Constitutionalist427]

@@tvbtvb5124 Yes if you can afford one, cause no one has an issue with the idea of putting them in ever house basement for power, they just haven't made them small enough yet, but we have tons of culture references that prove most people would support doing it.

[@lancewalker6067]

@@tvbtvb5124can you afford one?🤦‍♂️

[@overbuiltautomotive1299]

@@tvbtvb5124 staw man argument like abortion and insist rape and all the less than 1 percent crap

[@juanfransisco6231]

Thanks for the status update… you’re keeping the 2A masses informed… you’re a patriot

[@curly__3]

The chevron deference decision is where everyone needs to be looking. Here's why: If federal agencies cannot interpret federal laws and rights then there is definitely no room for a state or local government, much less a state or local government bureau to interpret federal laws and rights. They cannot argue that federal laws have supremacy if they pick and choose which rights and laws have supremacy over state and federal laws. At the heart of the chevron deference case is the scotus affirming that all interpretations of federal laws and federally enumerated rights are the sole jurisdiction of the federal courts. It says so directly in the ruling. Now we just need cease and desist orders based on that ruling...but i'm gonna tell you, GOA, NRA, FPC, SAF and the rest will not do this because if they did, they would all be out of very lucrative jobs. This is going to have to come from private individuals and their private attorneys. I have been posting the following comment on every gun law channel i watch for months and will continue to do so: States and local governments explicitly do not have the right or jurisdiction to enforce anything having to do with weapons or the use or carry of weapons. That all falls under federal jurisdiction because that is a federally enumerated right and federal law. Allowing state and local governments to change and modify our rights and forcing citizens to assert their rights in court costing 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars, jail time or even costing their lives to do so is not legal. It is criminal. In order for the Constitution to be law and for the bill of rights to be law, they must be congruent on every square inch of US owned territory. PERIOD.

[@TheHarleywolf]

They just GVRed them to kick it further down the road. These district courts will just sit on everything like the 9th circuit is doing. 10 years to get a decision should bring an immediate SCOTUS decision.

[@chrisb8046]

SCOTUS is not interested in taking up an AWB and mag ban case. Period.

[@akulahawk]

This results in not slowing down the various PICA cases as they go through their processes in the courts. SCOTUS extremely rarely takes up a case in an interlocutory status. I also think SCOTUS is "gently" stating to the lower courts, via Justice Thomas's statement, that they should start being more careful in how they rule as SCOTUS knows what's percolating in the lower courts.

[@robertdunn7717]

This is getting aggravating if we stand together they all will fall

[@user-dl3tk7qt6y]

"PEOPLE ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN POLITICIANS IF THEY EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT," Beta Matani'Marashi

[@robertbrink3455]

All current cases that are having identity problems, assault weapon, high capacity magazine, common use, etc., should have a definition hearing.

[@DLFerg0369]

Currently, there are no countries whose primary service rifle is exclusively semi-automatic. Most modern militaries use select-fire rifles, which can switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic or burst fire modes. This versatility is crucial for adapting to various combat situations. Historically, the United States was unique in adopting the M1 Garand, a semi-automatic rifle, as its primary service rifle during World War II. However, this is no longer the case, as the U.S. military now uses select-fire rifles like the M4 and M16.

[@leeknivek]

Which we could purchase and still can in many cases, with only the 1986 ban on future weapons. The army was using select fire weapons hand in hand with citizens being able to freely purchase them

[@theshootindutchman]

God bless Judge Thomas🙏

[@132west2]

We are the most oppressed community in America at the moment.

[@DC-ei9vl]

I'm 57 and I absolutely agree. It's time to stop tolerating dumb shit and bring common sense back. Film every encounter with "authority" you're able to, question all incoming information (even from well trusted and familiar sources). When somebody presents a study to try proving something, find out who funded it, most importantly, we always need to have the moral courage to not follow the crowd when the crowd is wrong. Call out BS when and where we see it. These are a few peaceably resistant things I can think of but nothing new. Ideas?

[@dlpcaddy]

I'm from Illinois this has been going on for a year. The SC left us hanging on our Rights

[@MrRune3690]

We appreciate everything you do, stay with it. We support you and the US Constitution 🇺🇸

[@outdoorchronicles2329]

Still can’t buy an AR in CA 15,000 videos later.

[@otpyrcralphpierre1742]

Question: What "Military usage" does the AR-15 have? F J B

[@user-pe3ld2is2o]

And why would you not want your militia to have and practice with military use weapons?

[@otpyrcralphpierre1742]

@@user-pe3ld2is2o I DO want my militia to have and practice with Military use weapons, but that does not answer my question....What "MILITARY usage" does the AR-15 have?

[@user-pe3ld2is2o]

@@otpyrcralphpierre1742 literally everything an M-16/M-4 does except auto and/or burst fire, which makes it the next best thing to train on for non-specialized troops. I would like to see our militia be able to train on all platforms that they may fight with, that may take decades or even a century. F-16s, sure, just as the NG has armories where they are stored securely, so could the militias.

[@rl670]

So we are looking at a minimum of two more years on an AWB case getting a SCOTUS decision. Hope the “make-up” of SCOTUS doesn’t change before then.

[@scottahermann]

Thomas is 78. He's probably only got a couple more years

[@Walter-wo5sz]

All the more reason to vote for Trump.

[@scottahermann]

​@@Walter-wo5szDoesn't seem real likely. He'd have to win independents 4:1. I'm not seeing it SCOTUS is basically blowing their chances to correct the big items. Hope an AW case gets there next year

[@fredlebhart1393]

@@scottahermannindependents didn’t watch the ‘debate’ I guess 🤷

[@scottahermann]

​@@fredlebhart1393I saw it. It moved the polls 3-5 points. In other words, it didn't change anyone's mind. Trump needs the middle. Suburban college educated moms. He's already got as much of the white male vote as he's going to get

[@poorfesor]

I don't think I ever read the term "Lawful Purpose" in the 2nd or any other amendment.

[@TGOMDAI]

Thank you for the clear and concise update.

[@gapo62angler93]

Rather be Judge by 12 , than Carry by Six. Bang Bang!!!

[@allanbador7316]

My question is how much longer will this delay the whole process? Or more specifically how much more time have we given anti-Gun politicians and courts

[@larry1754]

So if "arms" issued for military use are are for military use only, not covered by 2nd Amendment protections, what about handguns? Glocks, Sig P320's Berettas, all have been issued and used in our military. Does that then mean, because they had military use, they are not given 2A protection for us, the responsible and law-abiding gun owners? And if THEY are protected under the 2A, what difference should it make if the firearm is a handgun or rifle? Notwithstanding the fact that an M16 issued in the military, is NOT THE SAME as an AR15 we can buy here! I would love these people to show me proof that an AR15, semi-auto only, was ever issued to our military!

[@michaellalanae7228]

Once they take away your ability to defend yourself then they can implement all kinds of crazy laws.

[@schaind11]

They punted, but Lucy was holding the football.

[@madelinedelisle5314]

GLAD THAT YOU EXSPLAIN THE CASES!!!

[@boyeatsworld-vr9ci]

the second ammendment defines arms as all weapons, even military weapons. the founders confirmed this when discussing canons

[@fox2wolf]

Thank you for your reports!

[@ArmedScholar]

Glad you like them!

[@wags115]

Can't imagine getting my information anywhere else! Thanks Anthony!

[@ArmedScholar]

Happy to help and I really appreciate your support!

[@FoxWolfWorld]

“Weapons that would be reserved for military use should be banned” I guess by that logic knives should be illegal then. And also trucks I guess

[@u.s.aarchangelforgod3679]

TY A.S for all your 2A News💯💪🏽

[@Kelso0225]

I find scotus to be very spineless right now

[@BLEACH500]

They don’t want Biden packing the court they are waiting until after the election

[@borabora4480]

they are not spineless, but rather following strong precedant in managing interlocutory appeals. Once they do grant cert on these bans they may very well have even a stronger WIN.

[@Kelso0225]

@@borabora4480 it just seems like every time we send something up to them they just send it right back to the lower courts and the drag it out even longer. I live in mass so that could be where my frustration is coming from lol

[@DisposableYeetapotamus]

@@borabora4480 honestly its pretty ass tho, by the time these old fucks make up their mind on whether or not our 2A Rights are worth the paper they're printed on, we'll all likely be dead. for Illinazi to get away with this 2 years into it and has zero aid to those affected by the problems inflicted by tyrants pushing the popular talking points despite none of them idiots even understanding on how guns work let alone knowing how to shoot. This all baffles me on how our government can just walk all over us and its fine, but yet, if a private citizen were to do any of this to a politician, they'd be in getmo for terrorism, just so absurd.

[@0oo00]

Well, have a look at them.

[@davidbladen5667]

What is the latest on the kalifornia ban on internet sales of ammo??

[@bondj001]

Keep up the good work, Anthony.

[@ENZORifleWorks]

It's always the same game of this court to that court then states refuse to follow the rulings then remanded and vacated...on and on and on. Will this ever end?

[@Mia_xoxo2-b3e]

I find scotus to be very spineless right now.

[@jimsmith4151]

They are to wishy washy lately

[@JamesWilliams-dj2bp]

Sour grapes.

[@jimsmith4151]

@@JamesWilliams-dj2bp the constitution is cut dry what’s the problem? I don’t see why they’re so hung up.

[@nonconsensualopinion]

Why? Because they refuse to support 2A rights and just gave all presidents immunity from everything, effectively creating "kings"? Why should be fear a government whose highest office has not legal culpability and wants to keep weapons from the people?

[@nancyobrien2854]

that's because they are either being threatened or blackmailed.

[@user-dl3tk7qt6y]

"THE GREAT OBJECT IS THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED," Patrick Henry

[@scotmars]

concise and direct breakdown of this information.

[@u.s.aarchangelforgod3679]

Protect our 2A and all constitutions

[@odinsson204]

So one thing you can bet on, is you can’t bet on SCOTUS.

[@davidrush8283]

My thoughts as well, may never do any thing for The People.

[@joshhencik1849]

You can't rely on them to jump the gun, no pun intended, and start ruling on things that haven't made their way through the process yet.

[@jamescook7713]

SCrOTUmS.

[@dennis4061]

Why does Cali have a ban on ar 15. That would also be unconstitutional?

[@brianchenoweth7347]

Excellent episode! Thanks!

[@VoFALT]

It is wonderful to hear that the Supreme is ready to take on these cases on final merits reviews.

[@sedg03]

Interlocutory... theyll ask questions to help guide the cases....

[@wyatts4338]

At what point do you think us here in Washington state Will start to see our “assault weapons” ban be more challenged by people like the Supreme Court? “Assault Weapon Ban. In 2023, Washington became the 10th state to generally ban the sale and manufacture of assault weapons. Unlike most other states with assault weapon bans, however, Washington does not ban or regulate the possession of assault weapons, only their sale, manufacture, import, and distribution.”

[@theKashConnoisseur]

To see the WA weapons or magazine bans challenged in the Supreme Court, you'd likely need to have a case work it's way through Washington federal courts, then the 9th Circuit, and then to SCOTUS if they choose to hear it. It's possible that another SCOTUS decision will strike down AR and magazine bans nationwide before that, and in that case, Washington would be freed.

[@RAM-ez8ml]

Washington gun law covers a few lawsuits that have been filed since that law was passed.

[@timhollingsworth7521]

Thank you for all of your updates on 2A.

[@goodfriend6428]

Excellent commentary! Thank you!

[@really_dont_know1681]

God please let them look into the SAFE act in NY

[@The_glock_fanboy]

​@ardrone56 point is we shouldn't have to bro!!!!!!!!!!! That's like letting mold grow in your bedroom than just moving the the guest bed. Tf how does that make since.

[@superegghead13]

@@ardrone56why should we have to give up OUR state. Upstate ny gets held by blue because of nyc’s massive 8 million people. Rest of the counties vote red besides albany syracuse rochester and buffalo

[@islandbruddahnokaoi4789]

Hello Al

[@ArmedScholar]

⛽🚀

[@user-fj4mt7vq1n]

Thank you for valuable info❤

[@jacobkisner8403]

So now everyone that did not adhere to the pica law in IL is a felon?

[@dutchboy9273]

Any law that restricts private ownership, use, carry, etc of ANY weapon is a violation of the Constitution and a basic human Right.

[@michaelhennessey8927]

I have to disagree with justice Thomas on a couple things: "We have never squarely addressed what type of weapons are arms" , all of them. "We noted the second amendment does not protect those weapons typically not possessed by law abiding citizens", Wrong! The second amendment protects our right to all weapons. Case in point- during the revolutionary war we used privately owned warships (privateers) to help us gain our independence.

[@g_1673]

What makes a weapon an arm? Military use or not arms are arms... period. 2A restricts nothing on the bases of it being for military use or otherwise. This is all BS.

[@widehotep9257]

BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS! ALWAYS BREAKING NEWS! EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO NEWS WHATSOEVER!

[@EdwardJRapoza]

Thank you for the update

[@josephtucciarone6878]

Thank you for this 2A update.

[@MartinDeano-n4v]

Hey SCOTUS! Do Your Fkn Job!!!

[@davidnweaver]

Thanks for the update.

[@l82nite]

These are all great, if the states will follow the rulings. There needs to be harsh penalties for those states that refuse.

[@fatgreyman183]

For the Algorisms Thank You Anthony 👍😎👍

[@kirkt9798]

Thank you for your report!

[@chethaynes5802]

Great Report. Thank You. AS

[@paradiseisland786]

THANK YOU, you're a specific commentary, straight forward.

[@ArmedScholar]

Thanks for your support!

[@d.t.4523]

Thank you, keep working.

[@bobcantstandzyobitz9778]

Boy, they create a hell of a lot of legal framework and jargon to overcomplicate the idea that people are militia and arms shall not be infringed.

[@johnpalm8051]

Nice job! Thank you!

[@runningman1156]

Thanks again for the info 👍👍

[@camron1501]

Thank you.

[@hawkattack]

Thank you for the great info. Also Love Love Love Blackout Coffee

[@richykong2930]

thankyou for all your videos keeping us up to date. can you find out any updates on mass cases?

[@Joe___R]

Anything designed to be used as a weapon or anything designed to be used with a weapon can be considered arms. Anything someone decides to use as a weapon is also considered arms at that moment. The 2nd amendment doesn't just cover firearms it covers any weapon and weapon accessorie. As well as any component to them, including ammunition and explosives. Private citizen should be free to own and carry any weapon they want and carry them wherever they want that the public is allowed to go. Which must include court houses, state and federal offices, schools, banks, and parks. It shouldn't matter if I want to buy or make even a nuclear bomb as long as I don't use it in an illegal manner.

[@alcobia09]

Good info.... thank you for posting

[@garymcdonald7470]

Thank you for all of the information you provided.

[@derekcloutier5177]

Thank you for your work 🙏

[@j.lindley3953]

Thank you !