Background checks are unconstitutional infringements just as carry permits, 10 day waiting periods, 1 in 30 "waiting periods" magazine capacity restrictions, AWBs, handgun rosters, etc.
I recently went to buy ammunition on my way out to the range was turned away because they couldn't sell it to me and my friends cuase the system was down
Combat veteran, came back home in April after a deployment to Iraq, wanted to go shooting with some old friends. Went to buy ammo to pitch in and was turned away because I don’t have a firearm registered to the state. So wrong.
Their is a huge problem that's not even briefed by either side. What the State fails to consider and what the applents also failed to argue is a 9th Amendment Uneumerated Right as applied challenge against the States Regulation. The Judiciary legal bait and switch is to treat what it calls an ancillary right into lower class right but The real question to consider is do we have a Uneumerated right not to regulated at all. The State of California Aka No Rights Land would justify any regulation it wants to use to further deprive it's People of any Right and Transformer them into a pay to play privilege, unfortunately the Judiciary continues to ignore the 9th Amendment so with every new State regulation it further undermines more Uneumerated Rights. California Regulation as applied to ammunition is a violation of the 14th and 10th and 9th and 2nd Amendments. And for these reasons the States appeal should be denied with prejudice. Let's watch to see exactly how the 9th Circus Court of Banana Peals will rule. Where's Homie the Clown when you need him.😂🤣😂
Her first statement saying the background check for a firearm and ammo are the same which they arent. Ones a federal system the ammo check is a state system that doesn't work.
@ 100% correct and the fact the judiciary views any right as being ancillary demonstrates how little they actually understand the 9th Amendment furthermore the 10th Amendment isn’t only reserved to States alone but it includes the people which is clearly indicated by the word Or in the 10th Amendment and once this is understood it then also becomes a 14th Amendment violation of the Peoples 10th Powers which can only exist with a robust understanding of the 9th Amendment Unenumerated rights by the Judiciary and the States and most importantly by The People whose Rights they are…
This case is akin to requiring a permit and pre-permission to speak or write cause your “might” yell Fire in a crowded theatre. This is a pre-cog system trying to limit what May happen by a vast minority of bad actors, where there are already laws on the books to punish those who are prohibited and those who knowingly furnish to those who are prohibited; yet these laws clearly infringe on every Citizen’s 2A rights.
They also don’t address the database tracking how Much (and each type) of ammo a person buys making them subject to arbitrary scrutiny by future Gov and whatever whims they may intend to do with that info = unconstitutional investigations/tracking/surveillance of constitutional conduct which therefore chills the citizenry’s use and assertion of their rights; which is also illegal. Also 9th and 5th Amendment violations as the paperwork you are required to sign contains attestations under penalty of perjury to Definitively be used against you by Gov in courts. 5th A doesn’t allow Gov to Compel speech from you in order to exercise your enumerated or unenumerated (9th Amendment) rights.
@36:15 sorry judge but this doesn't apply. Tobacco and alcohol are NOT rights. Firearms ARE, a firearm is a paperweight without ammo. Restricting ammo restricts rights.
Who said there was a self defencse "test"??? (in regard to the first lady speaking) 🗽When she mentions registration or application, where is that in text and tradition? 🗽
@@AscDrew Four boxes diner did a video on this. They could not use laws passed after the founding fathers started to pass away in 1829. The only time they could use Reconstruction era laws was if they reinforced the understanding in 1791. Not the laws that did things like disarm minorities.
Reconstruction era is allowed because the 14th amendment is generally regarded as the first time the constitution's protections in the bill of rights became binding on the individual state governments. Prior to that in theory it only restricted federal goverent action.
@@jacobew2000 and that would make logical sense because you can no longer simply ask the founding fathers what they meant. After their passing away, courts just have to infer what they may have meant.
@@MichaelOnines Reconstruction era laws are only allowed if they allowed for the civil right. SCOTUS talks about this in Bruen. For example, they could not use gun bans of minorities anymore because of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment being passed, that changed the way state laws could affect free citizens.
I was going deer hunting and was denied ammo because I had not bought a firearm within 5 years of the date I was trying to buy . 270 ammo. It's bad enough that the state makes us the only state to mandate lead free ammo but to force a purchase of a firearm to buy ammo for an existing legal firearm is absolutely violating my 2a rights.
😂After the democrats lost the Civil War to the Republican party. The US was cautious about allowing former democrap soliders being armed. Also, what is eluded to was the racist laws that the state of California are using. During this case it was like racism was behind a chain link fence & everyone choose to acknowledge it & NOT fight it directly but California is using it. 😂
In adult discussions using the term "democrap" is childish and immature. Please be better than the anti-gun people who love using childish talking points and arguments.
The difference is that after the Civil war, the south was under martial law. No one could do anything without permission from the military authority. By 1871, the Southern States had gotten all their rights back. Unfortunately, SCOTUS upheld the "separate but equal" idea, and that had to be overturned in the 1950s.
🤔how Do u not understand A2 or Shall not be infringed don't u understand?... And we the people come first or we the people don't need a groverment. And 18 U.S.C. § 242.. I have proof n video my civil freedoms were violated. But can't seem to get any help Oregon. Sad. Groverment needs held accountable for their actions.
Background checks are unconstitutional infringements just as carry permits, 10 day waiting periods, 1 in 30 "waiting periods" magazine capacity restrictions, AWBs, handgun rosters, etc.
I recently went to buy ammunition on my way out to the range was turned away because they couldn't sell it to me and my friends cuase the system was down
background check for ammo is insane
@@footballstar113The countless/constant California infringements are equally insane.
Congratulations to both the lawyers for the plaintiffs and the CRPA. Excellent job and god bless Kim Rhode!
Combat veteran, came back home in April after a deployment to Iraq, wanted to go shooting with some old friends. Went to buy ammo to pitch in and was turned away because I don’t have a firearm registered to the state. So wrong.
Their is a huge problem that's not even briefed by either side. What the State fails to consider and what the applents also failed to argue is a 9th Amendment Uneumerated Right as applied challenge against the States Regulation. The Judiciary legal bait and switch is to treat what it calls an ancillary right into lower class right but The real question to consider is do we have a Uneumerated right not to regulated at all. The State of California Aka No Rights Land would justify any regulation it wants to use to further deprive it's People of any Right and Transformer them into a pay to play privilege, unfortunately the Judiciary continues to ignore the 9th Amendment so with every new State regulation it further undermines more Uneumerated Rights. California Regulation as applied to ammunition is a violation of the 14th and 10th and 9th and 2nd Amendments.
And for these reasons the States appeal should be denied with prejudice. Let's watch to see exactly how the 9th Circus Court of Banana Peals will rule. Where's Homie the Clown when you need him.😂🤣😂
As applied? That's letting them get away with divide and conquer. The whole law should be repealed.
Her first statement saying the background check for a firearm and ammo are the same which they arent. Ones a federal system the ammo check is a state system that doesn't work.
Exactly! The concept of an ancillary right being a lessor right just ignores the 9th Amendment!!
@ 100% correct and the fact the judiciary views any right as being ancillary demonstrates how little they actually understand the 9th Amendment furthermore the 10th Amendment isn’t only reserved to States alone but it includes the people which is clearly indicated by the word Or in the 10th Amendment and once this is understood it then also becomes a 14th Amendment violation of the Peoples 10th Powers which can only exist with a robust understanding of the 9th Amendment Unenumerated rights by the Judiciary and the States and most importantly by The People whose Rights they are…
@@AscDrew 100% Correct 👍
We are not really free if we need permission…..
So, basically an ammunition tax that you lose whether you pass/fail the background check. Amongst other things.
6:53 that’s a blatant lie, I was turned away from buying ammo because I don’t have a registered firearm
This case is akin to requiring a permit and pre-permission to speak or write cause your “might” yell Fire in a crowded theatre. This is a pre-cog system trying to limit what May happen by a vast minority of bad actors, where there are already laws on the books to punish those who are prohibited and those who knowingly furnish to those who are prohibited; yet these laws clearly infringe on every Citizen’s 2A rights.
They also don’t address the database tracking how Much (and each type) of ammo a person buys making them subject to arbitrary scrutiny by future Gov and whatever whims they may intend to do with that info = unconstitutional investigations/tracking/surveillance of constitutional conduct which therefore chills the citizenry’s use and assertion of their rights; which is also illegal.
Also 9th and 5th Amendment violations as the paperwork you are required to sign contains attestations under penalty of perjury to Definitively be used against you by Gov in courts. 5th A doesn’t allow Gov to Compel speech from you in order to exercise your enumerated or unenumerated (9th Amendment) rights.
@36:15 sorry judge but this doesn't apply. Tobacco and alcohol are NOT rights. Firearms ARE, a firearm is a paperweight without ammo. Restricting ammo restricts rights.
THANK YOU 👆🏽
Who said there was a self defencse "test"??? (in regard to the first lady speaking) 🗽When she mentions registration or application, where is that in text and tradition? 🗽
I thought the analog needs to be at the time of the amendment not 80 years after?
In Bruen and/or I believe the case prior, SCOTUS left the door open to the relevant timeframe being Founding era or Reconstruction era.
@@AscDrew Four boxes diner did a video on this. They could not use laws passed after the founding fathers started to pass away in 1829. The only time they could use Reconstruction era laws was if they reinforced the understanding in 1791. Not the laws that did things like disarm minorities.
Reconstruction era is allowed because the 14th amendment is generally regarded as the first time the constitution's protections in the bill of rights became binding on the individual state governments. Prior to that in theory it only restricted federal goverent action.
@@jacobew2000 and that would make logical sense because you can no longer simply ask the founding fathers what they meant. After their passing away, courts just have to infer what they may have meant.
@@MichaelOnines Reconstruction era laws are only allowed if they allowed for the civil right. SCOTUS talks about this in Bruen. For example, they could not use gun bans of minorities anymore because of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment being passed, that changed the way state laws could affect free citizens.
Idk what shall not be infringed means, garble garble garble garble....That's all I heard.
They don’t dare make these silly arguments about the 1st amendment. Imagine if we had to wait 10 days to buy a pen or paper
I was going deer hunting and was denied ammo because I had not bought a firearm within 5 years of the date I was trying to buy . 270 ammo. It's bad enough that the state makes us the only state to mandate lead free ammo but to force a purchase of a firearm to buy ammo for an existing legal firearm is absolutely violating my 2a rights.
DOJ, get ready to lose on this one. Nice try but no dice in continuing to violate our rights
😂After the democrats lost the Civil War to the Republican party. The US was cautious about allowing former democrap soliders being armed. Also, what is eluded to was the racist laws that the state of California are using. During this case it was like racism was behind a chain link fence & everyone choose to acknowledge it & NOT fight it directly but California is using it. 😂
In adult discussions using the term "democrap" is childish and immature.
Please be better than the anti-gun people who love using childish talking points and arguments.
Actually, it was because Democrats didn't want newly freed slaves to be armed, it was one component of Jim Crow.
Southern democrats are Republicans and Northern Republicans are democrats
The difference is that after the Civil war, the south was under martial law. No one could do anything without permission from the military authority. By 1871, the Southern States had gotten all their rights back. Unfortunately, SCOTUS upheld the "separate but equal" idea, and that had to be overturned in the 1950s.
@shawnbalch6046 As a victim of democrap bias & an American citizen I will use all of my rights. ✌️
🤔how Do u not understand A2 or Shall not be infringed don't u understand?... And we the people come first or we the people don't need a groverment. And 18 U.S.C. § 242.. I have proof n video my civil freedoms were violated. But can't seem to get any help Oregon. Sad. Groverment needs held accountable for their actions.
Fck 9th circuit
Ok ok you all beat me to death.. how do I unsubscribe. Took my rights and gave them to bonita.