It took 9 years after this video for SCOTUS to get involved again. Needed to shift the court balance all the way to 6-3. 5-4 is not enough for gun cases, for some reason.
As a Connecticut (anti gun state) resident and Firearms owner, and a real 2nd Amendment advocate/supporter/activist, hearing Atty Gura's closing Statement gives us hope in CT. Us Firearm owners sure had a load of crap jammed down our throat's in 2013 in the wake of the Sandyhook Tragedy. We will not shut up, and will hopefully reach SCOTUS within the next 2 years. This man is real sharp!
aran125 Gura is the man. He's been counsel if not lead counsel on literally every important 2nd Amendment case that's been brought in front of the US Court of Appeals or SCOTUS. Paul Clement is another figure as well. I forsee 1 or 2 SCOTUS cases where Clement, Gura and a few others form a "dream team" and settle certain 2A rights issues for good.
The Second was implemented so settler colonists could always legally own and use firearms to protect themselves from harmful actions done by bad guys. In those days, the bad guys were judged to be indigenous Americans, i.e. Indians, and Brits, brigands, sometimes Spaniards, Mexicans, or the French - in no particular order. At one point a colony required male heads of households to own a firearm, and if they could not afford one, the colony would loan them the money to buy a firearm. Firearms were different back then - when Plymouth colony was settled, their firearms were less powerful, slower to load, and had lesser range than the bows used by Indians. It wasn't until the Brown Bess (and later the Spencer rifle and similar repeaters invented around the Civil War) that a firearm was nominally better than a good bow - which is why the military trained troops to stand shoulder to shoulder and fire in volleys, so the deadly effect would be magnified by massed fire, with a second and third rank reloading whole the first rank was shooting, giving faster fire than a bow. It took many years and many troopers to amass superior firepower to the bow. Today there are still bad actors who kill, injure, and threaten innocent civilians. Therefore, the need for the Second Amendment is a strong as it ever was.
Regarding the right to bear arms; if you are a natural born citizen of the several United States; you are the licensor, not the licensee. A licensor is a person or a company with exclusive legal rights over a thing that gives, sells or otherwise surrenders to another a limited right to use that thing. The person benefiting from the grant is called a licensee and the legal term used to describe the authority so given is license. “We The People” in the “Bill of Rights,” did not surrender the right to bear arms to the government in fact we explicitly forbid the government from infringing on said right. Regarding the “well regulated militia” portion of the second amendment; “We The People” (licensor) granted the government (licensee) a limited right (a license) to use arms as follows: ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,") Another term you should familiarize yourself with is, “Gaslighting.” Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance. The ultimate goal of which is the disempowerment of the targeted individual.
Heller has nothing to do with the constitution or the second amendment. And some event that happened in somewhere after the second amendment was written that you’re trying to make possible to go against the second amendment.
I strongly believe that the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed". However, the courts have repeatedly stated that CCW's can be limited or outright banned, while open carry is the "lawful mode" of carry. So why is it that Alan Gura keeps pushing lawsuit after lawsuit for ccw, which keeps getting ruled against? I feel that he is actually hurting our gun rights with these unwise lawsuits that he keeps loosing. He seems to HATE open carry.
The two problems with open carry is first, it makes people nervous and quite frankly, the public is on a need to know basis when you're carrying. The second problem is, if there is a "bad guy" he'll know your armed and you become the first casualty.
Because "to bear arms" includes BOTH open AND concealed carry. Why should we accept UNLAWFUL restrictions from lying, cheating, thieving, oath breaking, felon usurping, criminal asswipes wearing cloaks that have NO LAWFUL POWER to deny or abridge even a wee little bit of the full scope of our RIGHTS; but, are, instead, actually DUTY BOUND, by the Constitution and their own personal oaths, to uphold the full scope of our rights against any infringement or abridgement? I'd rather see them shot in their faces, frankly. F... them all very much!!! And, I'd just like to emphasis, that I mean that very sincerely!!! I'm not just angry and flying off the handle. Like the one judge was quoted as saying, "This is very serious business!" Americans are dying who are being denied the full exercise of their rights. And, people may very well die who resist the COTUS! And, RIGHTLY SO!!! "..., against all enemies, foreign and domestic, ...". NOTE: Mr. Gura must lose lawsuits in the lower courts in order to get them to the higher courts! And, the fact that he IS losing them in the lower courts is VERY DISTURBING to the Patriot Community in the USA.
@@TheDidjidude i agree, i dont really object to people getting a permit to conceal carry a handgun in many circumstances. I can see no real reason to allow people to go around carrying AR15s or whatever rifles in public places. They didnt even really allow that in alot of the wild west. We have always restricted such things. Even Texas wouldnt allow people to carry guns near public buildings and spaces back in the day. I have yet to see any legit argument why someone should be allowed to walk around stores and whatnot with rifles, beyond the vague "its my right". This 'Open Carry" idea is something much newer, that most historians think the Framers would of thought was ridiculous. They didnt even want women, minorities, and opposing political parties to be allowed to own guns. They really only wanted people who agreed with them to hold guns, not all americans.
It took 9 years after this video for SCOTUS to get involved again. Needed to shift the court balance all the way to 6-3. 5-4 is not enough for gun cases, for some reason.
As a Connecticut (anti gun state) resident and Firearms owner, and a real 2nd Amendment advocate/supporter/activist, hearing Atty Gura's closing Statement gives us hope in CT. Us Firearm owners sure had a load of crap jammed down our throat's in 2013 in the wake of the Sandyhook Tragedy. We will not shut up, and will hopefully reach SCOTUS within the next 2 years. This man is real sharp!
aran125 Gura is the man. He's been counsel if not lead counsel on literally every important 2nd Amendment case that's been brought in front of the US Court of Appeals or SCOTUS. Paul Clement is another figure as well. I forsee 1 or 2 SCOTUS cases where Clement, Gura and a few others form a "dream team" and settle certain 2A rights issues for good.
The Second was implemented so settler colonists could always legally own and use firearms to protect themselves from harmful actions done by bad guys. In those days, the bad guys were judged to be indigenous Americans, i.e. Indians, and Brits, brigands, sometimes Spaniards, Mexicans, or the French - in no particular order. At one point a colony required male heads of households to own a firearm, and if they could not afford one, the colony would loan them the money to buy a firearm. Firearms were different back then - when Plymouth colony was settled, their firearms were less powerful, slower to load, and had lesser range than the bows used by Indians. It wasn't until the Brown Bess (and later the Spencer rifle and similar repeaters invented around the Civil War) that a firearm was nominally better than a good bow - which is why the military trained troops to stand shoulder to shoulder and fire in volleys, so the deadly effect would be magnified by massed fire, with a second and third rank reloading whole the first rank was shooting, giving faster fire than a bow. It took many years and many troopers to amass superior firepower to the bow.
Today there are still bad actors who kill, injure, and threaten innocent civilians. Therefore, the need for the Second Amendment is a strong as it ever was.
"proper cause, good cause, good & substantial reason." Ambiguity is a bureaucrat's best friend.
Regarding the right to bear arms; if you are a natural born citizen of the several United States; you are the licensor, not the licensee. A licensor is a person or a company with exclusive legal rights over a thing that gives, sells or otherwise surrenders to another a limited right to use that thing. The person benefiting from the grant is called a licensee and the legal term used to describe the authority so given is license.
“We The People” in the “Bill of Rights,” did not surrender the right to bear arms to the government in fact we explicitly forbid the government from infringing on said right.
Regarding the “well regulated militia” portion of the second amendment; “We The People” (licensor) granted the government (licensee) a limited right (a license) to use arms as follows: ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,")
Another term you should familiarize yourself with is, “Gaslighting.” Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance. The ultimate goal of which is the disempowerment of the targeted individual.
Heller has nothing to do with the constitution or the second amendment. And some event that happened in somewhere after the second amendment was written that you’re trying to make possible to go against the second amendment.
I strongly believe that the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed". However, the courts have repeatedly stated that CCW's can be limited or outright banned, while open carry is the "lawful mode" of carry. So why is it that Alan Gura keeps pushing lawsuit after lawsuit for ccw, which keeps getting ruled against? I feel that he is actually hurting our gun rights with these unwise lawsuits that he keeps loosing. He seems to HATE open carry.
The two problems with open carry is first, it makes people nervous and quite frankly, the public is on a need to know basis when you're carrying. The second problem is, if there is a "bad guy" he'll know your armed and you become the first casualty.
Because "to bear arms" includes BOTH open AND concealed carry. Why should we accept UNLAWFUL restrictions from lying, cheating, thieving, oath breaking, felon usurping, criminal asswipes wearing cloaks that have NO LAWFUL POWER to deny or abridge even a wee little bit of the full scope of our RIGHTS; but, are, instead, actually DUTY BOUND, by the Constitution and their own personal oaths, to uphold the full scope of our rights against any infringement or abridgement? I'd rather see them shot in their faces, frankly. F... them all very much!!! And, I'd just like to emphasis, that I mean that very sincerely!!! I'm not just angry and flying off the handle. Like the one judge was quoted as saying, "This is very serious business!" Americans are dying who are being denied the full exercise of their rights. And, people may very well die who resist the COTUS! And, RIGHTLY SO!!! "..., against all enemies, foreign and domestic, ...".
NOTE: Mr. Gura must lose lawsuits in the lower courts in order to get them to the higher courts! And, the fact that he IS losing them in the lower courts is VERY DISTURBING to the Patriot Community in the USA.
@@TheDidjidude i agree, i dont really object to people getting a permit to conceal carry a handgun in many circumstances. I can see no real reason to allow people to go around carrying AR15s or whatever rifles in public places. They didnt even really allow that in alot of the wild west. We have always restricted such things. Even Texas wouldnt allow people to carry guns near public buildings and spaces back in the day. I have yet to see any legit argument why someone should be allowed to walk around stores and whatnot with rifles, beyond the vague "its my right". This 'Open Carry" idea is something much newer, that most historians think the Framers would of thought was ridiculous. They didnt even want women, minorities, and opposing political parties to be allowed to own guns. They really only wanted people who agreed with them to hold guns, not all americans.