BREAKING!!! Magazine Ban Permanently Struck Down & Ruled Unconstitutional! Appeals Court Reviews!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video I breakdown a win and appeal after a magazine ban & permit law was struck down.
My Patriot Supply: preparewitharmedscholar.com/
🎥 Follow Me On Other Social Media 🎥
Instagram: / armedscholaryt
Twitter: / armedscholaryt
Twitch: / armedscholar
📷 My TH-cam 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!
My Patriot Supply: preparewitharmedscholar.com/
This food is actually good!
YOU NEVER HAVE A PROPER UNDERSTANDABLE RECAP. YOU ALWAYS GO IN EXTREMELY HARD TO FOLLOW CIRCLES.
@@caseyt8447 Everything was pretty easy to understand if you've been paying any attention at all to the Oregon 114 situation.
Clickbaitmonger strikes again. "We win!" = OR magazine ban case proceeds forward instead of dismissed
Yep. So tired of wasting my time. Thinking about unsubscribing. If something really does happen, I’ll find out without watching 20 vids about “winning” before it finally does.
Frustrating!! Don’t say we win unless we really win!!
I was coming to the comments for this reason.. lol, just saved me 10 min.. 🙌
Seems to be the norm with gun news guys. Copperjacket tv does it too. Touch less maybe.
God i absolutely hate that. Don't post "we win" until we actually win! I unsubscribed long ago over this nonsense.
We need the California laws banned. The new 11% gun and ammo tax and the large mag ban
I believe the large mag ban is or was struck down. At least its likely to go.
Preach
Ban was struck down by benitez. But 9th circus stayed it while case is heard by 9th circus.......someday.......
@@jtown998 20 years later maybe
Every single CA law that infringes 2A shall be repealed.
If high capacity mags are so evil...Why do the police have them?
Or criminals…. That’s why they say can’t have them. They don’t want us to be able to equally defend ourselves
I agree constitution says NO GOVERNMENT shall create a law that does not equally pertain to itself
Because police are evil 😈
Because they don’t need that many rounds
@Divici02623 if it's a tyrannical government you will idiot that's what the 2A is mostly about!!!! WOW
REMEMBER ANY Ban is UNLAWFUL
Agreed, I should be able to exercise my first amendment right to free speech anywhere in any manner and at any time.
No rest until “shall not be infringed” is the only gun law.
🇺🇸👍🙌
You'll be waiting a decades for that to happen.
@@backfromthedead553 if everyone remains a coward, yes.
Blah blah blah, you aint gonna do anything. I see these comments all the time on these videos yet no one does anything about their rights getting taken away
@@killjoy117007 because united we stand devided we fall one person wont and cant do shit
Need the "high capacity" mag ban removed in Washington along with the "Assault weapon" ban. Sick and tired of these blue states infringing on our rights.
In all the United States
These tyrants should be limited to quill pens and horseback travel.
Yes. It would bring back meaning to the epithet, "F U and the horse you rode in on." I'm OK with that. Cheers.😀
They HAD magazines at the time of the founders.
Ben Franklins own Famers Almanac was much larger than 10 pages.
@@robertsmith2956 the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1790. The Girandoni air rifle that Lewis and Clark carried was first made in 1779, and it featured an integral tubular magazine. By the 1860s, the Henry repeating rifle and similar designs helped magazine-fed weapons become commonplace among the civilian population. It would be very hard to argue, under the Bruen standard, that magazines wouldn't be seen as integral to the function of a firearm.
Quills yeas horse travel no, the c h i t belongs behind the horse not on top of it!
@@robertsmith2956 First machine gun was make before our country was formed.
I'd like reparations for having to suffer this whole time in Oregon
You've been able to have hi-caps the whole time due to Judge Raschio in Harney County. Washington residents have to continue to suffer though. 😢
Same for IL.
Move.
@@RobertHall-mq7ze Don't move. Stay and fight. You are the militia. When you've had enough, it will be a sudden and overwhelming thing.
Suffer? I've been able to buy mags and stuff
The government has "NO" right to tell you what firearm you can and cannot use!🤬🤬
They make the rules, they get to decide what you can have. We only have the right to select those who make the rules.
@@theKashConnoisseur God gave us the right to bear arms, not the government. Take your bootlicking to someone who won't punish you for it.
@@Thedouchenugget God doesn't grant legal rights, governments do. Insisting that the sky isn't blue doesn't make you right, no matter how much people might wish you were. God won't keep you out of prison, nor will he free you when you wind up there for violating laws.
Founding fathers wrote shall not be infringed. What did they write about a tyrannical ......... ?
@@theKashConnoisseur Law makers make that claim. Law makers do not have rights. They are bound by the constitution.
When California and Massachusetts required firearms to have a magazine disconnect, that didn't allow it to fire without the magazine. Doesn't that make the magazine an intragal part of the function of the firearm?
Something tells me they'd make an argument like, "You don't tEcHnIcAlLy NEED a magazine to fire projectiles! You can single load the rifle by hand!"
@Roxas13XIII The magazine disconnect disables the firearm from being able to fire without the magazine installed. The Ruger MK series is one example. The older MK 1+2 can fire without the magazine, as you suggest. The newer 3+4 cannot as required by some of the states' regulations. Thus, the Liberal controlled states changed the requirements of production of the firearms, making the magazine an itragral part of operation. Now, they want to claim the magazine isn't a part of the firearm. At that time, they also required chamber loaded indicators installed in manufacturing. I'm uncertain if that's because liberals aren't smart enough to rack the slide and safety check the arms, or if it's braille to include blind people into the shooting community too.
Son't apply logic to what they do. Their "good intentions" trump logic every time.
You know damn well if the plaintiffs had missed the deadline to appeal the decision that the courts would not have allowed them an extension. Such crap
Exactly 💯
The state is lying. The magazine language says "readily convertible ", which means any magazine with a removable base plate will be banned. That is virtually every magazine.
These are the same people who can't understand what "semi-auto" means.
This is naked "salami-slicing" (taking a little bit at a time) away a Constitutional Right because they know properly convening a Constitutional Convention would never fly.
Firearms capable of accepting magazines holding more than ten rounds would also be banned. That includes just about everything. The appellate court is full of left leaning idiots. Would you or I get away with late filings, when we asked for the schedule? 💩 ✌
None of my magazines have hands. They can't hold anything.
@@robertsmith2956 Tell it to the jury.
They are not free to write anything. They are bound by the constitution in the strictest form.
Why do we need permission of any State Government that doesn't represent me or pay attention to the Constitution.
Because they can kill or imprison you if you don't do what they say.
no, gov that do not adhere to the US constitution are illegal and invalid "gov".
Technically, you are free to do whatever you like, wherever you like, however you like. Only, there are consequences. Permission of the State makes it so that there are at least fewer negative consequences (prison time) when it comes to doing things with firearms and associated accessories. But if you don't care about consequences, go right ahead and do whatever you want.
@@theKashConnoisseur any gov in the US that refuses to comply with the US Constitution is invalid and unlawful.
@@theKashConnoisseur You are how we get here. If you live in the US, I will buy you a one way ticket to any country you wish.
Where does it say in the constitution that you need fingerprints to get a gun?
You don’t need them to VOTE! That’s more important than anything in our country!
Too many appeals...too much time wasted on a legal standard "SHALL NOT" INFRINGE....
Thxs for updates 👍
stop complying
Any legitimate legal system should tilt in favor of the citizen and not The State.
That is how it is supposed to work. But between silver tower jurisprudence and lawfair, justice has no part in our modern legal system.
Law enforcement empties 17 before reloading & emptying another 17 when they fear for their life but you peasants only need 3 tries before you're SOL
Trusting ANY court to uphold the Constitution is like trusting the fox to guard the henhouse!
Well, the Constitution itself charges the Courts with interpreting the Constitution and holding laws to it. If we're going to hold the text of the Constitution in such high regard, we have to accept that the Constitution gave judges that power.
@@theKashConnoisseur These unelected, politically appointed and unaccountable "Judges" can't be trusted to uphold the Constitution. Insy, their do the bidding of those who appoint and confirmed them. This is the one fatal flaw in the Constitution that needs to be changed. The Constitution is written in plain language, not legalese, for all to understand and is not open to "Interpretation".
Omg lets ban all phones, computers and cars because they are used in many crimes. Based on their thoughts and analogies. They bunch of hypocrites.
They are trying to take away your ability to stop them..... When they takeaway your freedoms and property!!!! Its exactly what their goal is!! They admire communist CHINA and want to recreat it here....
Wake up
Dude. You go on about what we already know all the time. Just give us updates and right to the point. God!
YT only pays ad money on videos at least 10 minutes in length. Otherwise the creator gets nothing.
No government can tax a right. Not to speak, not to worship and not for any other Constitutional Right. That was already decided by SCOTUS.
are not court fees taxing your right to a trial?
No, they said you can't be denied the right to vote based on unpaid taxes. They never issued a blanked statement covering all rights.
They ruled that your second amendment rights can be taken away, all it takes is to violate a law that is in the spirit of some law that was around during the founding,it doesn't have to be a exact match or even similar, just has to be in the spirit of some type of firearm restriction, the language used in the Rahimi case has basically gave the government the authority to infringe on our second amendment rights for any reason they think might make someone a dangerous person therefore no longer a right just a privilege
It’s crazy how the 2nd amendment is the most restrictive and regulated of the rights in the constitution.
Have you heard of the 4th Amendment? And how the invention of the internet basically obliterated it in spirit?
Oregon's Measure 114 was a disaster. Glad it's gotten crushed in court.
Yes it was! Thanks for watching Matt. I'll see you soon!
@@ArmedScholar You coming Tuesday? VSA Clubhouse 6pm
So far
But it didn't... the appeals court could easily put it in place by overturning the lower courts decision. We haven't won yet and we may not win at all.
When do I get to collect reparations for my troubles and my rights being infringed along with emotional damages
If modern weapons and standard capacity magazines aren't necessary for self-defense, then the police shouldn't have them.
The police aren't engaged in self defense, they're engaged in law enforcement. There's been special allowances for armed members of the Executive branch since the Founding.
@@theKashConnoisseur and citizens are allowed those same arms under the constitution.. since the founding.
@@tom-oneil Show me where in the Constitution it says that civilians get the same tools law enforcement does. That's right, you can't. But I can go right to the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and point out where the laws let police have things we can't.
Per the Constitution, the Legislature makes the law, the Executive branch enforces the law, and the Judicial branch interprets the Constitution and holds laws to it. And the Judicial branch has affirmed that the police and the military are allowed to have things you and I can't have. Denying that fact will never change it.
@@theKashConnoisseur The justification for their weapons is not an offensive assault. It is self-defense in the event of resistance from a suspect. Self-defense.
They're not supposed to be out attacking the public, they're not allowed to just shoot folks committing an offense, they're only allowed to shoot when they are in fear of imminent bodily harm, like any other civilian. The only authority a LEO has that a member of the general public has is the authority to brandish a weapon when making an arrest- prior to the fear of imminent bodily harm, but where their experience/training/department policy deems the situation is likely to escalate.
Yes there are special allowances in the law allowing LEOS to carry weapons banned to other civilians, and there shouldn't be. But it's the politics of getting the LEO's support in pushing getting the laws passed. They support them as long as they're exempted and assurances of budgets/salaries increasing.
If a particular weapon is acceptable for civilians to defend themselves, that's true whether the civilian is a member of a general public or a LEO performing their duties.
If a particular weapon isn't acceptable or necessary for self defense-- that's true regardless of whether it's being wielded by a member of the general public or a LEO performing their duties.
@@ma-jp8bf I understand law is complicated and confusing to some people. You're obviously confusing "use of deadly force" justifications with the rest of policing, including the weapons they're allowed to have which we are not.
Police are allowed to pull their weapons out even when a suspect hasn't displayed a weapon in turn. You and I can't legally do that. Yes, the police are allowed to defend themselves. But they are also charged with enforcing the law, which gives them privileges that normal citizens don't enjoy. Such as calling suspects out at gunpoint, brandishing a firearm without a direct physical threat, firing at a fleeing felon, pointing guns at innocent civilians while clearing an active shooter situation, etc etc etc.
You can sit there and deny facts until you're blue in the face. But it doesn't change anything, and so seems entirely pointless to me. Better to stay informed, understand the limits, and push them as far as you can without going over the line. Or hey, drill that 3rd hole and tell all your buddies in prison that you had every right to do so.
Are any of these rulings really a win when anti 2A states simply defy the rulings or invent new laws to override them?
Agree, Delaware is one of the states that bans high cap mags and assault rifles that are any semi auto rifle that holds more than 10 rounds add to that permit to buy a hand gun.
good question.
Certainly doesn’t feel like it.
Bingo! Newsom and Bonta will ignore any 2A rights.
We will only win when those responsible are permanently removed.
That’s exactly the problem. The SCOTUS does not have an enforcement branch to reel these state governors and AG’s in. So it’s all a “he said, she said” game. And local law enforcement will follow laws of the state, that are written by state officials in glaring contradiction to SCOTUS rulings. It will take a landmark arrest and dismissal of someone in violation of state law but following SCOTUS ruling. Only then will things change. But the battle will continue.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
On the MERRY-GO-ROUND THAT NEVER STOPS SPINNING. THE SUPREME COURT IS ALMOST USELESS. ALMOST!
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.
chicago V mcfonald incorporated 2A. Only way for state to not be under it now is they give up their corporate status and go back to being a territory.
Meanwhile: Rights are still infringed.
I don't get it if it's unconstitution then why are they keep on doing it? They should strike down it for good and tell them they cannot do it anymore.
You gotta read the court documents to really understand it. The thing is, the courts rule on specific aspects of how laws conflict with the constitution. In 1st and 4th Amendment cases, they've ruled that there are no unlimited rights. So there's no such thing as a judge going "you are no longer allowed to make laws about guns, ever, period". With Oregon 114, the law was challenged on multiple grounds,. These included the (state) constitutionality of the magazine ban, and also the undue burden placed on prospective firearms purchasers by the new state permitting scheme. If the state Supreme Court ultimately rules that magazine bans are unconstitutional per the state constitution, then sure, it would be hard to try and ban them again. But it's a process designed to prevent hasty and rash decisions. As such, it takes time. If it helps, the Oregon Constitution is arguably more favorable towards firearms than even the US Constitution.
The why is because democraps don't see consequences for their crimes.
@@theKashConnoisseur It's plain and simple don't miss with the constitution. The democrats don't understand they can't ban guns.
Because they just keep it wrapped up in court. Doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional. If you just keep throwing taxpayer money at keeping it wrapped up in legal appeals, you get what you want without even having to definitely win a case. Look at CA. Was deemed unconstitutional like ten years ago and we still can't purchase.
Let’s test this in Illinois…I’ll be happy to get a large payout from the taxpayers
I wish SCOTUS would hurry up and strike down the Illinois AWB. I've been saving up cash for a few purchases I've had my eye on the second it gets taken down.
I’m from Illinois to. I wouldn’t hold your breath. I’m moving.
Meanwhile in Washington State: none for you…
Thanks Anthony
Thanks for watching and supporting the channel!
breaking news “NOT IN CALIFORNIA’
Kalifornia is a train wreck. If you need anything, maybe take a drive to Vegas have a nice weekend there and stock up before you return?
Hello from maine, another day of misdirection and double standards!
Abolish the Atf.
Keep up the great work Ant!
Thanks for your support!
What us thus? A library for ants?
Thank you for the update. I guess it’s time to buy more guns for Oregon’s residents before that law goes into effect. Remember the left coast courts have not met a gun law They do not like. Not holding out much hope here.
Because standard capacity magazines are tacitly allowed in criminal use, the public is due equal protection under the law with the same standard capacity magazines as a public safety matter. The public deserves a level chance in self defense . We should not be penalized, allow the criminals an advantage, because we are law abiding. The State should not be allowed to place this undue penalty on the law abiding public.
We’re not banning all opinions. We’re just banning opinions that are harmful to the state.
Makes no sense. A screwdriver is harmful if not used correctly, just like pressure cookers in Boston a few years ago. Unfortunately, evil always finds a way.
Keep up the great work, sir. You are an invaluable source of information.
Thanks for your support!
At what point does this become an issue of "judge shopping" by the AG?
If you pull a trigger and something goes boom, then they are SIMILAR
When it's our side that does it. Rules for thee...
I see this argument in NJ, but when criminals are caught with a 33-round magazine sticking out of a Glock 19, they let them walk. Two-tier justice system.
Thanks for the update!
Amazing I've lived my entire life without all of my rights. Matter of fact, I was screwed before I was even born! I'm not unique. Entire generations have been denied their full exercise and protections.
Crazy when I think about it. I'll probably pass away having NEVER realized my true potential.
/r
I am old enough to remember freedom in calif. I doubt if I will live long enough for the assault weapon ban, pistol roster and ammo restrictions are removed.
Thank you for the information.
Thanks for your time and effort on these updates
No problem!
Yeah. I don't really care about what stupid write on paper. My Rights don't belong to them
Thx Anthony
Thanks for the update.
For the Algorisms
Thank You Anthony 👍😎👍
We definitely need judges like Mr. Raschio in Washington state because we 2 Goose Steps from full tyrannical government.
Helps us Obi Wan, you are our only hope.
Thanks for the update.
Thanks for his update Anthony ❤️🙏
Just Tell the " Court Administrator " you sold it to Eric Holder 😂😂
Love your channel! Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Congrats for starting your personal journey to better health. Keep it up, you are worth the effort!😊
Thanks for the update 🙏🤙
Any law written against the constitution is null and void on its face and therefore unenforceable. I believe that was Madison VS Marbury?
Tell that to the police
You're ignoring the part where it says the Courts are the ones who interpret the Constitution and decide what laws go against it.
Anthony thanks for keeping us informed. We need to know what the courts are doing.
Thanks man stay safe 👍
Someday Congress or SCOTUS will step up and put an end to this anti-2A bs.
Thanks for following this.
3:51 there is actually no way to get that permit, therefore banning the purchase of all firearms.
Thank you! Outstanding update!
I wish Connecticut would remove the 10rd mag restrictions and AW ban. At least we can still get suppressors for the time being.
When he says “a state”. That means not California. So I guess I’ll skip watching this video...
Same here. This is milked too much.
Always sucks you in
For real. But there's little hope for us here. People don't care that their tax dollars are put towards keeping unconstitutional laws wrapped up in court appeals for decades. They win the battle by just throwing tax player's money at the fight and stalling the process as much as possible. Californians as a whole frankly just don't care, and what's really frightening is that is becoming the new model and a whole hell of a lot of folks don't think that can happen in their state.
💯
It’s baffles me how basic reading comprehension is ignored, like the phrases shall not be infringed or shall make no law. Just imagine how much money our government and the all the bureaucrats, would save the taxes payers if they actually followed the Constitution instead of making up things that were never meant to exist in the first place.
It's because democraps don't see consequences for their crimes.
When you look at the history and tradition surrounding the Framing of the Constitution and the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, it's pretty clear that when they said "shall not be infringed", they were referring to wholesale public disarmament. The Courts have held from the very start of the country that there are "no unlimited rights". Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can incite riots, and the right to bear arms doesn't mean you can access WMDs. There have always been common-sense restrictions, such as prohibiting felons and the insane from having guns, or prohibiting possession while someone is actively drunk, etc.
@@theKashConnoisseur WMD didn’t start until Jimmy Carter. Try again. Also gun control didn’t really start until the NFA was enacted in 1934. Those people weren’t founding fathers.
@@Dan_Hill43 it doesn't really matter when the term was coined, since there is ample historical analogues going back to before the founding where "dangerous and unusual" weapons were banned or otherwise restricted. In the majority decision for the recent SCOTUS case Rahimi v US, the Court took the effort to cite some of the relevant case law which justifies such regulations under the new Bruen standards.
I don't like the fact that "shall not be infringed" wasn't interpreted more in our favor, either. But I'm a Constitutionalist, and the Constitution gave the Court the authority to make these interpretations. If we don't like it, we have the ability to vote for Amendments. But we don't have the ability to interpret the Constitution ourselves. Article III gives that power to the Court, and only to the Court.
Yeah we know judges can ignore plain English, like shall not be infringed or make no law
How come every time they appeal any law the state gets to use tax payer dollars???
Asking the Government permission to exercise your Rights are not Rights.
Looking good bud! Keep up the amazing work you are doing for your own health.
Good video Anthony !!! 💥🔫from Commy Ct 🇺🇸
thanks for the update
⛽️🚀🗽🇺🇸🙏 Pray hard and fight on!
Should be no laws on guns❤
And on it goes. It’s not a permanent ‘FINAL JUDGEMENT’, just another step to SCOTUS. More appeals, more wasted time, more rights violations.
Hello Al
HERE WE GO!!
Every home to be issued MRAP with 3 249's on top! BREAKING NEWS ARMED SCHOLAR!
Excellent analysis
I live in Rhode Island. they did a high capacity magazine band and did not grandfather in any magazines already owned. Therefore, the state of Island stole our property, forcing us to destroy it because who’s gonna buy an old magazine.
Fueling the algorithm
Man can’t we petition these people out of office ?
😂😂😂, these people don't understand petitions.
@@backfromthedead553 then why not teach and show people instead of trying to laugh at them?
We did it in CO with 'rocky mountain gun owners' a few years back. We got 2 or 3 state legislators out on a recall vote. All blue state gun owners need to be pushing for these non-stop. I wish CO would have recall votes every year.
State level electoral college
Everyone should show up for the court case carrying muskets since they say they are OK to have.
Oh boy, they give me permission to exercise a constitutional right. Do I need government permission to exercise any other right?
Thanks again
Thanks for watching!
I find it funny that the Government can miss deadlines and their cases can move forward but if a citizen misses deadlines- their cases are quickly dismissed.
Good info!
My favorite part is regurgitating this information to my friends, it makes me sound cooler than I actually am because I still don’t understand how this stuff works.
Love it.
So the state can show up late and unprepared but normal citizens can’t? This must be some of that no one is above the law stuff.
What a bunch of nonsense. The state asked for an expedited case and then missed their deadline. Case closed. Would the appeals court allow anyone else such mercy?
Oregon mightvas well argue TV and Radio, cellular and data communications are null and void under the 1A.
I live in New York. When will this freedom spread here?
I wonder if the government considers protecting oneself against government tyranny to be a lawful purpose?
I would be ashamed to be any lawyer that said any of what they did. What school did they actually go to? The state is actually paying for that crap. Wow
Thanks for your content
They need to just go ahead and make a ruling that all states need to get rid of their mag bans. If it's unconstitutional in Washington, it's unconstitutional in NY. Why have a seperate hearing for every state?
Your best work yet & thank you.
Great information, thank you!
Can we just get the second Civil War over with already . . . this is taking too long to get all these cases to the SCOTUS.
Thanks for the update, especially since I live in Oregon and open carry while delivering a Christian message since late 2015. Originally started ministry in 2008 not even being a hand gun owner. Open carried over 60x and now double open carried since COVID and even blow my shofar. Market & Lancaster Church.