"We Can't Let the People Have Their Rights Back, That Would Be Dangerous!!"

First Half

The Benson decision by the DC Court of Appeals (which affirmed the right of the People of DC to own so-called "high-capacity" magazines) is having a ripple effect that's causing severe anxiety throughout all the Communist occupied territories.

Second Half

Kentucky lawmakers approve a significant change to their state's concealed carry law by reaffirming it for 18–20-year-olds. This is also already having a concentric effect in other states as well, including Royce's home state of Florida.

Lastly, a U.S. Congressman from Virginia has introduced federal legislation that would place the burden of recompensing those wounded or killed in gun-free zones on the government entity that instituted the restriction. 

Transcript

THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS AUTO-GENERATED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY NOT BE PERFECTLY WORD-FOR-WORD ACCURATE OR GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. WE APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR ANY IRREGULARITIES AND/OR MISTAKES.

Life has a way of throwing unforeseen events and new opportunities our way. At Glover, Orndorff &
Flanagan Wealth Management, they are dedicated to putting your interests first with a truly
personalized approach. They are there to bring confidence to your investment planning choices.
Whether you need income production for retirement, 401k guidance, long-term investments, or other
financial planning needs, they'll focus on the establishment of a plan tailored to your life's
priorities. For more information, call Bill Orndorff, partner with Glover, Orndorff & Flanagan
Wealth. Management today at 321-344-1202. 321-344-1202.
Investment products and services are offered through Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC.
Member SIPC. Glover, Orndorff, and Flanagan, LLC is a separate entity from Wells Fargo Advisors
Financial Network.
WJS Guns in North Merritt Island is where you need to go for your firearms, ammunition,
accessories, holsters, body armor. fishing tackle, and much more. WJS Guns also offers blue label
pricing for law enforcement officers on multiple firearms brands. And above all,
WJS Guns offers friendly, exceptional service to everyone, especially to us ladies and first-time
gun buyers. For more information, check them out at wjsguns.com. And always tell them Roy sent
you.
Regression against
murder
control
law.
All right, he said let's go, so let's go. We are locked, loaded, and loud on the Shooting Straight
radio podcast. This is all about firearms with a heavy, heavy emphasis on the Second Amendment and
all things pertaining thereto. I am Royce, your oh-so-gracious host.
Still reeking of gunshot residue, toxic masculinity, and a faint yet oh-so-wildly tantalizing
whiff of the cologne of my people, hops number nine. I want to remind you,
you can follow the program on social media, on Farcebook, and on Instagram.
Look for the logo and give us a like and a share, and I sure will appreciate that. A lot of you
already do follow us there, and I really thank you for that. You want to reach out to me with a
question, a comment, or tell me I'm a jerk or that my feet stink, whatever.
ShootingStraightRadioPodcast at gmail.com or ShootingStraightRadioShow at gmail.com. And I
respond very quickly, always. You guys are very important to me. I appreciate all of you.
I tell you what, this program has just ballooned since the days it was live on WMMB and
iHeartRadio. Oh, man. worldwide following, definitely in all 50 states.
I tell you this, the feedback from all of you is just incredible. And thank you so much. I thank
you for being part of the audience. And more than that, thank you for who and what you are, all of
you. You are my fellow keepers and bearers. Obviously, this program resonates with you because we
think alike, and I'm glad to be the guy with the big mouth out front. Please share the program
around, and I sure will thank you for that in advance. This program,
of course, being about the Second Amendment and about the Constitution in general,
but definitely focused on the Second Amendment, obviously. Duh.
I'm really appreciative of our founders about is how they codified our rights into our supreme law,
literally made it part of our national constitution, literally a directive to our government to not
suppress our rights. It enumerates them, defines them clearly,
and I tell you, that's a stroke of genius, really,
when you think about that. No other nation has what we have like that.
One of the things, of course, that they codify was our right to keep and bear arms for war.
I know there's some liberals that follow the program and you're shaking your heads and blah,
blah, blah, blah. You think we're only allowed to own BB guns and 22s and stuff like that.
But the word arms does mean arms for war, like it or not. And every time there is a...
-Second Amendment court decision, oh my goodness, the weeping, the wailing, and the gnashing of the
teeth seems to hit a crescendo. That's certainly true recently with a,
I'm tripping over myself here because I'm probably getting way ahead of myself.
That's the problem with my brain. It gets way ahead of my tongue and my tongue tries to catch up.
But there is a good ruling out of D.C. From here on out,
we'll call it the Benson ruling because that is the name of the party that was, for all intents and
purposes, persecuted by his government for freely exercising a right he was born with there in D
.C. And the leftist totalitarians in multiple states now,
looking at this ruling and seeing that it has the potential to take power back from them that they
stole from us, are weeping, and they are upset. They don't like this ruling from this D.C.
Court of Appeals that strikes down the magazine capacity limits. They're not just in D.C.,
but this is going to ripple into other states. It's going to become a precedent,
hopefully, and hopefully it will have the same fame and notoriety as the Bruin decision.
Now, of course, we have to go ahead and assume that, like every other law, the Democrat Communist
Party is going to violate that, too. They're going to try to create their own counter laws,
as they did in the wake of the Bruin decision. Worse than that, if the Supreme Court steps into
this and basically affirms the Benson ruling, part of me is going,
well, big deal, because they are not exactly... inclined to defend their decisions.
None of them said anything to the lower courts that have upheld all of the counter laws passed in
California and New York and Illinois and beyond. None of them. They did nothing to stand up for
their own ruling. This takes us back to what I say all the time. When it comes down to it,
people, we're going to have to be the ones to defend ourselves and our rights and with force. I
hope I'm wrong, but I don't see the communists waking up anytime soon and going, you know what?
We're going to be Americans today. We're going to forsake our treasonous, traitorous ways. We're
going to stop trying to corrupt the country. and take it over, we're going to go ahead and turn
over a new leaf. Yeah, that ain't going to happen. That ain't going to happen. But whenever these
swine illegally set new limits upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, they feel
empowered by that because they have essentially deprived the people of a right,
and rights are power. They know that our rights are power, and they are powerful.
when we freely exercise them vigorously. You know, it's like they can't shut us up.
It's codified into law that they're not allowed to. They're told flat out, you may not make any
restrictions on free speech or the freedom of the press or the freedom to worship God,
the real one, as you see fit. And Congress shall make no law nor prohibit the free exercise thereof
of such. So they can't shut us up because we have the right to speak freely.
They can't march us into the camps because we have the right to resist and the means to resist.
And that gets in the little totalitarian way. They don't like that.
And now that this Benson ruling has come into play, like the Bruin decision, They are upset as can
be, and they have moved light speed to try to get higher courts to shut it down or other courts of
appeals. You see, these people are like filthy ticks and mosquitoes. They like to suck the
lifeblood out of the citizenry. They don't just want to take our money via taxation.
They don't want to just take our children via DCF. They want to take all of our rights.
our right to privacy, our right to keep and bear arms. And they're doing their damnedest to try to
strip us of those things. But... As soon as their unlawful laws get shot down after a good
challenge, they start back with the weeping and the wailing and making dire predictions of rampant
gun violence and other violent crime, taking over the citizenry simply because that bad old court
of appeals said that they weren't allowed to do the crap that they were doing. And they're dadgum
well upset about that. They don't like it. I'm going to reference an article by Duncan Johnson out
of Ammo Land. Great publication. I think you should follow it.
That and Bearing Arms. And also the publication, online publication,
The Truth About Guns. Great publications. I follow all three of them all the time. Got some
fantastic authors there. But here's the article. Interspersed generously,
of course, with my own commentary. The panic, and I inserted the leftist panic,
around Benson v. United States is no longer limited to Washington, D.C. After the D.C.
Court of Appeals struck down, the district's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Anti-gun officials, anti-rights officials, moved fast to contain the damage,
just like they did in the wake of Bruin, I might add. What was the first thing they did?
They called an emergency legislative session in New York, as I recall, and immediately basically
tried to transform the entirety of New York City and tried to designate it as a sensitive area in
order to stay within the erroneous confines of the Bruin decision.
And when I say erroneous, I'm saying not all of that was necessarily on the money.
When they talk about, well, you have the right to restrict it from sensitive places. Well,
immediately, what do you think they did? Every place is a sensitive place. And that's what they do.
They want to try to manipulate the law to rob us of rightful power. That's just what these people
do. Back to the article. D.C. is now asking the court to rehear the case.
Actually, the full court. While states like New Jersey are already trying to keep the ruling from
influencing their own fights over AR-15s and magazine bans, that tells you that Benson is bigger
than one local case, and the people defending these bans know it. Oh, yes, they do.
That's why they are so quick. I mean, you think about this. It's kind of like a thief.
You know who hates thieves more than anybody? Other thieves. Yep.
They don't like being stolen from. Oh, they can steal from you. But if you try to steal from them,
oh my goodness, you're nothing but a dirty lowlife thief. Well, it's okay when they steal from you.
It's just not okay when you try to take it back. Yeah, say someone steals your lawnmower and you
see it over in your neighbor's carport and you walk across the street and take it back. They don't
like that. They feel like they somehow earned that by putting their safety at risk by stealing it
from you. I don't know.
Back to the article. The Benson decision was a major win for gun owners. The D.C.
Court of Appeals reversed Tyree Benson's conviction and held that magazines holding more than 10
rounds are protected arms under the Second Amendment, described them as being in common and
ubiquitous use, and struck down the district's ban as unconstitutional. And yes,
people, this is going to have a heavy ripple effect. The court emphasized that these magazines,
number in the hundreds of millions, make up about half of the magazines in civilian hands,
and come standard with many of the most popular firearms sold in America.
That's certainly true where I work. Every AR we sell comes with a 30-round magazine. And you can
buy plenty more. We've got plenty of them. That language from the Heller decision is a direct
threat to the legal theory behind AR-15. and magazine bands across the country.
Not too much of a threat, obviously, because the leftists, like I said, are simply going to pass
more laws in direct defiance of this ruling, just like they did after Bruin. Mark my words,
this battle is far from over. I mean, this is a nice salvo across the bow, but if you think they're
going to roll over and accept this, you don't understand your enemy, do you? Now remember... We're
dealing with lawless people in the Democrat Communist Party, and laws don't matter to them any more
than they do to any other pack of criminals, okay? Article continues. For years,
anti-gun states have tried to treat standard capacity magazines as if they were some kind of a
fringe item outside the Second Amendment. Benson cut straight through that by recognizing what gun
owners have been saying all along. These are common, ordinary arms owned by millions of peaceable
Americans for lawful purposes. I've got news for you. As far as I'm concerned,
even if they were not in common use or ordinary use, or if they were not ordinary,
if it's an arm used for war, we the people have every right to own them,
and the federal government has no business trying to tell us we can't. The federal government and
all state governments and all cities... every government within the continental United States has
zero constitutional authority to pass any gun control. There, take that to the bank.
But, the article continues, what makes Benson especially dangerous to the gun control lobby is not
just the outcome, it's the split in authority that the case created. The D.C.
Court of Appeals, the district's court of last resort, went the opposite direction from other
appellate courts. that have upheld bans on standard capacity magazines. That kind of conflict
matters because the Supreme Court is much more likely to step in when lower courts are openly
divided on a major constitutional question. Well, you know what? Let's hope so. Because it's
becoming increasingly difficult to trust the Supreme Court as far as I'm concerned.
I don't hold them, what should I say, in a place of trust anymore.
This is why I've said repeatedly in multiple programs, we the people are the final authority,
not the courts. If we all stand up under arms and say, you ain't doing this,
and if you try, we have the right to shoot you, that has a heck of a lot more effect on them than a
Supreme Court ruling that's stamped on paper.
Lawyers in several pending Supreme Court magazine banned cases have already filed supplemental
briefs pointing to Benson as the kind of conflict the judges usually look for when deciding whether
to grant review. One brief told the court that there is now a quote-unquote square split on the
ultimate question of whether bans on magazines over 10 rounds can survive the Second Amendment.
Another argued that Benson, quote unquote, deepens the split of authority.
Well, if all the courts in the U.S. actually upheld and defended the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights as it is written, there would be no split at all. The Constitution is not difficult for me
to understand. I've had several times people, one of them being one of my sisters, tell me,
well, you're not a constitutional scholar. And my response was, oh, the heck, I'm not. I study the
Constitution far more than most attorneys do. I can assure you of that. And it's not that darn hard
to understand. All you need is a dictionary, really.
That's what it says for me, okay?
Says, in other words, this ruling has already become part of the push to get the Supreme Court to
finally take up the issue. Court records show that a district sought to suspend the opinion's
effect almost immediately and then filed a rehearing on bunk asking the full D.C.
Court of Appeals to step in and overturn the three-judge panel. The goal is obvious. erase or
weaken the ruling before it can become an even stronger vehicle for Supreme Court review.
Okay, you know what this signals to me? Their fear of losing power that they stole.
They fear losing conquered territory, not to mention the power that they had no right to take from
the people in the first place. They had zero authority to do that. And unfortunately,
we've given them power. through our compliance of these kind of laws. Now,
let me throw an interjection in here from another article by Cam Edwards from BearingArms.com,
title of which, DC government continues epic freakout over magazine bad decisions. Good.
Let them freak out. I want them freaking out. I want them scared. They deserve to be scared.
Yeah. So, here it is. Last Wednesday, the district filed an en banc review of the three judge
panel's decision and pleaded with the court to grant the request as quickly as possible.
In fact, D.C.'s attorneys argued that the court shouldn't even wait for the plaintiffs to reply to
the en banc request because, quote, the effect of the division's decision on public safety has been
extraordinary and immediate, warranting prompt action. Really?
Really? What kind of extraordinary and immediate effects on public safety have manifested
themselves in such a short time? Please point them out. Show your cards.
Oh, that's right. You can't. Because you're full of crap. Keep in mind,
the article says, that the DOJ said months ago it would no longer prosecute individuals for
possessing quote-unquote large-capacity magazines, so it's been up to the district to enforce the
misdemeanor since then. A misdemeanor. So, what has been the extraordinary result of the Benson
decision? Well, first, the division's facial invalidation of the large-capacity magazine
prohibition causes immediate and severe risks.
So you're saying all the criminals in D.C. had been complying with the ban on such magazines,
but now they're all taking advantage of this ruling. Is that what you're saying?
It says, unless and until the full court vacates the opinion and grants rehearing en banc,
the decision will have ramifications that will be difficult to undo. Those ramifications have
nothing to do with the criminal justice system. It has more to do with the communist attempted
takeover of this country and using the courts and the legislative apparatus to do that.
That's what they're saying. We're going to have to spend a lot more money trying to steal this
power back. The article continues, in particular, the division's opinion opens the floodgates for
large capacity magazines. which have been prohibited for nearly a century to surge into the
district. That is no hypothetical. Over a million large-capacity magazines flooded into California
in the brief period after its LCM prohibition was enjoined,
but before the ruling was stayed by the district court. Yep, they sure did. And all into peaceable
hands because there was no surge in violent crime during that brief period. There was no surge in
any kind of violence with AR-15s or anything like that. So what do you got to say about those
stats? They came back with second. As noted in the district's emergency motion,
the district, I mean, I'm sorry, the decision. also affects the district's ability to enforce laws
prohibiting the possession of unregistered firearms and unlicensed carry of concealed weapons.
Okay, did you catch that? What's their concern? Their guns are unregistered.
Okay, how does registering people's guns enhance public safety?
It doesn't. It makes it worse. How does... How is...
Unlicensed carry. Who does that actually affect? The government. Yeah,
they don't get their money for the unregistered firearm. They don't get money for the unlicensed
carry. They don't get money. Well, more than that, they don't get to keep...
control over the free exercise of the right. That's the real beef here.
Under the logic of the division's decision, as long as offenders also possess large capacity
magazines, they are apparently immune from prosecution for carrying an unregistered firearm without
a concealed carry license.
Okay.
So, you're saying half of these cases that involved so-called illegal possession of firearms...
You're saying half of those already involve large-capacity magazines that have been banned there
in D.C.? Well, then, you know what? That sounds to me like it seems like that ban y'all passed
isn't really keeping people from acquiring these magazines. Well,
that kind of really undermines D.C.'s argument here, then, doesn't that?
Boy, oh, you're saying that this decision is going to lead to a flood of large capacity magazines.
Well, apparently they're already owned and possessed by, you know, presumably peaceable citizens.
Article continues. What about the district's argument that people can immunize themselves from
prosecution for carrying an unregistered firearm without a concealed carry license? Benson's
attorneys provided a rebuttal on Friday in their response to the district's request for an
expedited en banc review. And here it is. Mr. Benson's conviction for possessing an unregistered
firearm and CPWL carrying without a license, not just because his firearm was equipped with an 11
plus one magazine. but because the district's unconstitutional ban on 11 plus one magazines made it
impossible for him to register his firearm and procure a license to carry it. So you know what?
It seems like the, uh, DC legislators and their judicial system kind of shot themselves in the foot
with that. Yeah. They kind of set up their own demise in this kind of like those,
uh, husband and wife anarchists in Italy a couple of days ago that blew themselves up trying to
make one of their little commie bombs. I don't know if you read about that. This continues,
thus, if the office of the Attorney General immediately ceases enforcing the unconstitutional ban
on 11 plus one magazines, and instructs the Metropolitan Police Department to grant registration
applications for firearms equipped with such magazines if the applicants and their firearms
otherwise qualify for registration, then, going forward, it will no longer be,
quote-unquote, impossible to register firearms with 11-plus magazines, and it will no longer be
impermissible. to prosecute people for possessing and carrying such firearms without a registration
certificate and license. Yep, as of this filing of this opposition, Metropolitan Police
Department's application for firearm registration still requires applicants to state the number of
shots for the firearm that they're registering, and the District of Columbia has not represented to
this court or to the public that firearms with 11 plus one magazines can be lawfully registered.
By the way, there's no such thing as a lawful registration anyway. Now, let's get back to the
original article. It says, and....C. is not alone in their panic of losing power they stole.
As Ammoland recently reported, New Jersey rushed into the Third Circuit on March 18th with a letter
urging the court to reject Benson as a quote-unquote non-binding outlier.
In other words, denigrate it and don't give it the respect it deserves. The state also complained
that the ruling remains subject to en banc review and conflicts with other appellate decisions.
That reaction says a lot. New Jersey is still trying to defend bans on AR-15s and magazines,
and it clearly does not want judges in the Third Circuit taking a hard look at a fresh decision
holding that magazines over 10 rounds are protected arms in common use.
Well, well, well. By the way, you notice that all of these states that all ban high-capacity
magazines, they all say the number has to be 10 or less. Where'd they get that from? Well,
that's the United Nations small arms treaty thing there. Yeah, look it up. Everything they fight
for is identical to what was in that charter, whatever it was, from the United Nations.
Says, that is really the national significance of this case. Benson is not just a local loss for D
.C. It is already putting pressure on other states, still defending bans on some of the most
commonly owned rifles and magazines in America. Once a court starts saying out loud that these
magazines are ubiquitous, common, and constitutionally protected, the foundation under these
magazine bans begins to crack. There is no lawful foundation for magazine bans anyway,
so as far as I'm concerned, crack it must, especially under the weight of the supreme law.
It says, and when these bands are tied to a broader attack on common semi-automatic rifles,
the pressure spreads even further. Very true. Very true. And it spreads to multiple states.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington State, and District of Columbia.
Yeah. How about that? So, yes, they are in a full-blown panic. Power that they stole illegally is
now being taken back from them, and they don't like that one bit. And we'll tell you more when we
come back after a brief commercial timeout here on the Shooting Straight radio podcast.
Don't go anywhere because all of the listener retention squads are on standby.
Hey guys, let me tell you what. Counter-Strike Tactical is the absolute best little gun store in
Melbourne. And proud sponsors of the Shooting Straight Radio Podcast. Come visit us at 1008
Strawbridge Avenue and see the custom AR builds by Anthony Vallejo, owner and combat veteran.
Plus, AK-47s, handguns, ammo. tactical rifle accessories, and much more.
So stop in and see us, 1008 Strawbridge Avenue, and visit the best little gun store in Melbourne.
Or give us a call, 321-499-4949. Tell Anthony that Roy sent you.
We can't wait to see you. As many of you know, I, your host, am a firearms instructor,
and I run all of my firearms training business through shootingclasses.com because it simply
doesn't make sense to try to do it all myself. With automated roster creation when students sign
up, payment processing and automated emailing to your students, reminding them of the class date
and time, it simply doesn't make sense to try to do all of that by yourself.
Get signed up with shootingclasses.com today and take a big load off yourself.
Norm's Music Shop. Producer and music creator for Shooting Straight Radio Podcast.
I can write and record a personalized music track for your audio or video projects. Do you want a
song for a special occasion? I can do that. For more information, contact Norm's Music Shop at
gmail.com.
Let's create your musical identity. Thank you. Welcome back to the program. We've been talking
about totalitarians losing power that they stole. Yes, having it taken back from them with legal
rulings and court precedents. We referenced the recent Benson decision out of D.C.
in the first portion of the program. Now we're going to go to Kentucky. Hey, all my Kentucky
friends there. Hey, Beth, PJ, Brandy, everybody. Another article by Cam Edwards I'm going to be
referencing. And the title is, Kentucky Lawmakers Approved Major Change to Concealed Carry Law.
And I really like this. A lot of states have suddenly stripped grown adults,
18 to 20 years of age, including here in my home state, stripped from them the right to purchase
and carry firearms. Now, they can own it if someone bequeathed them one,
but they can't buy one through a straw purchase. I mean, their mom and dad can buy one as a gift or
maybe a close friend or something. If it's actually a gift, yeah, you can do that. That's totally
legal. But how is it that these people can sign contracts,
they can vote and help steer the direction of our nation with their votes,
but somehow they're not mature enough yet to carry a firearm? Yeah.
Here's the article by Kim Edwards. For 30 years, Kentucky has been a quote-unquote shall-issue
state when it comes to concealed carry licenses, and since 2019,
permitless carry has also been allowed for those who can legally possess a firearm,
or at least most of them. Current state law prohibits adults under the age of 21 from carrying a
concealed firearm with or without a valid carry permit. The law could soon change,
though, and for the better. That is the better for constitutionalists, not for the totalitarians,
of course. On Friday, the state Senate gave its stamp of approval to HB 312,
which would create a new provisional carry license for 18 to 20-year-olds.
Adults under the age of 21 will still need a permit to carry, unlike their older counterparts.
Okay, why? Yes, I want to take the incremental win here,
but I don't understand why they get to a certain part and then just balk at going all the way with
it. Okay, y'all can carry guns, but you get a special license. Why?
Do they get a special voter registration? Do they get special driver's licenses that 21-year-olds
don't have? Why do they need a special provisional carry license?
My goodness. They're just as much adults in the eyes of the law as their 21 and older counterparts,
so what the heck? Anyway, but as Representative Maddox notes,
this brings Kentucky in line with 25 other states that recognize the obvious truth that the right
to keep and bear arms is fully vested at the age of adulthood and not at the age of 21.
25 more states to go, people. Citizens who are 18, 19, and 20 years old are legally recognized as
full adults. They can vote in elections that shape our future, sign binding contracts,
join the military, get deployed overseas, and even give their lives for their country. They can
start families, launch businesses, and they can own and possess firearms,
but they cannot carry them because under current law, These same adults are prohibited from
carrying that same firearm concealed for personal defense. This creates a dangerous inconsistency.
We recognize their adulthood and the responsibilities that come with it in every other way, but we
deny them the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones when they step outside their
homes. Okay, again, what other rights are restricted like this for their age bracket?
Name one besides this. Okay, ask yourself why it is only the Second Amendment right that they're
wanting these people to not exercise.
Because 18 to 20-year-olds in this country, they make up a very,
let's say a strong addition to we the people, i.e. the militia,
if you know what I mean. That's right. They want to decrease our numbers as much as possible
because they fear we the people being armed. And when I was prepping for this program,
I looked up, see, how many 18 to 21-year-olds are there in the United States?
And there's close to 30 million. Okay, you see what I'm saying now about diminishing the ranks of
the militia, we the people. That's what they're doing. They have decreased our firepower by 30
million at a minimum. Let's say only 10% of them actually will pick up a firearm and defend
themselves, their neighborhood, their state, their country against any and all tyrannies.
Okay. That's still 3 million. Yeah. So if they can strip that age bracket of actually being armed
out there on the street. Well, they've reduced our numbers by a large percentage.
That's why they're doing this. There's no other reason they would strip them of this one right in
this one right only. Okay? Back to the article.
Kentuckians over the age of 18 wouldn't need a conditional carry permit either, but this is one
area where progress has been incremental. And by the way, thank you, Todd Centers, for originally
sending me this article. I appreciate it, brother. I know he lives out there in Kentucky. He's the
captain of the listener retention squad there. He said less than half of the 29 permitless carry
states include adults under the age of 21 in their statutes, although Wyoming...
has also passed a bill this session that will lower the age to 18 starting July 1st. Good.
It's almost like there's a freedom epidemic catching hold here, you know? The Supreme Court has
been silent about when Americans are fully vested with their Second Amendment rights,
but the justices have been hanging on to five different cases that directly deal with that issue.
including challenges to the ban on gun sales to adults under 21 in Florida, down here in my home
state, and bans on carrying in West Virginia. Of course, there's nothing stopping states from
lowering the age on their own, as Kentucky lawmakers have done. Now,
Cam also goes on to say in this article that Governor Andy Beshear, who is anything, he is nothing
at all. He's not constitutional, in the least. Let's put it that way.
He might veto the bill. So he's also possibly looking at a Democrat presidential run in 2028,
and that'd be a massive resume enhancer for him. But the HB 312 passed the...
73 to 17. And in the Senate, 29 to 7.
Those are massive margins. So what it falls to is that the Republicans in Kentucky have more
testicular fortitude than the ones in Washington, D.C., well, they could easily overturn the veto
by the governor if it came down to that. So that's one good thing. One more.
area where liberals are losing power. The communists,
whatever you want to call them, are having power taken away from them with court decisions or other
measures. Here's an article by Mark Chestnut from March 20th, a few days ago.
Federal measure would allow those harmed in gun-free zones to sue for damages.
Yes, glory to God, amen, and shame on the devil. This is what I'm talking about right here. How
many of us have said that if we are somehow required to be unarmed by the government,
that that government has assumed to itself our protection? And we know how good that works out,
right? Yeah. Well, if we're being mandated into defenselessness, and our children are mandated into
defenselessness, and the teachers and the principals are mandated into defenselessness in these gun
-free zones, you better bet your patootie they have the right to sue if they're damaged.
You don't get the right laws that are detrimental to the public safety of the people.
So, here's the article. As the Truth About Guns readers are well aware.
How many times have we said that here on this program?
A U.S. congressman from Virginia has introduced legislation that would place the burden for those
wounded or killed in areas where guns are forbidden on the government entity that instituted the
restriction.
Good. You know what else? I think you ought to make it retroactive to 1990.
Representative John McGuire, a Republican from Virginia, introduced the Shall Not Be Infringed Act
on March 16th. The measure would allow people harmed by firearms in gun-free zones to seek
compensatory damages from the state or locality in which the incident occurred. And Representative
McQuire made this statement. Gun-free zones do not prevent danger.
You're dang right, brother. They invite danger. Instead, they make law-abiding citizens helpless
victims. Gee, I think he might listen to this program. Criminals do not care about the law,
and it is our right enshrined in our founding documents to protect ourselves and our families.
My Shall Not Be Infringed Act allows for individuals harmed by a firearm in a gun-free zone to sue
the state or locality. What about the federal government? Hmm, just throwing that out there.
So the Shall Not Be Infringed Act... creates a limited cause of action or civil remedy.
It's not criminal. If a state or locality has a gun-free zone law, a harmed person may sue the
state or locality and recover compensatory damages and pain and suffering when the following
conditions are met. One, harm by someone else's firearm use.
Harm that occurs in a gun-free zone. That's number one. Second,
The person who is harmed is authorized to carry in their state of residence.
So this is how they establish an aggrieved party. That way, someone who does carry in their state,
and they were in a gun-free zone, and they get harmed and hopefully survived.
Of course, how can you sue if you don't? And so they've survived a shooting.
They have legal recourse by saying, and they establish, what should I,
I don't know the legal word for it, but they establish, they validate their suit by saying,
you know what? I'm allowed to carry my gun outside of these grounds, but you forced me into
defenselessness here, and I had no way of using my firearm to defend myself as I would anywhere
else. And that establishes that legal. Or should I say validation,
okay? Third, the person could have averted or mitigated the harm if they had been carrying their
gun at the time. Now, I'm paraphrasing all of this to make it more understandable, putting the
cookies on the bottom shelf, so to speak, so we can all have one. So what they're saying is, when
the following conditions, I don't know if all three must be met. It appears that is the case.
So if you are in a gun-free zone and you get injured by somebody else with a firearm,
and if you're authorized to carry in your state of residence where you were harmed,
and if you can prove that, hey, I was within range of that scumbag and I could have taken him out,
I could have defended myself and other people, but you told me I had to be defenseless. I could
have mitigated the harm to myself and others, and had I been allowed to carry, well,
you've got a civil action, and that's good. More than that, I think you just need to shut down gun
-free zones altogether. That's just me. The measure defines a gun-free zone as any geographic area
where public carry is prohibited under federal, state, or local law. It also has some teeth to it.
Using DOJ grants to drive compliance for fiscal years after the bill's transition period,
noncompliant states and localities may face up to a 99% reduction in burn JAG funds,
that is part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act crap, and other funds for other...
or should I say, programs there. So they're putting some teeth in this to really go after people
and make it hurt, which is what you need to do to these people, these filthy,
godless communists. They need to pay for it. That's the problem when they craft unconstitutional
laws. There's no repercussion. There's no consequence. There's nothing. They're not held
accountable. And that needs to stop. So,
incidentally, John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, or the CPRC, has been
warning of the danger of gun-free zones for years, and he's not the only one. In fact,
Lott's research shows that the vast majority of mass shootings occur in such areas where lawful
citizens do not carry, but criminals remain armed, of course. Yeah, it's well over 90%.
of all these mass shootings happening in gun-free zones. He noted this important fact in his
testimony on mass shooters and gun-free zones before the Wyoming State Senate Judiciary Committee
in February 2025. And he said, anybody who reads the diary... of these mass murderers knows that
time after time, they explicitly talk about why they picked the targets they did.
And overwhelmingly, they explicitly say they want to avoid places where they know their victims
might be able to defend themselves. You can look at the Nashville Covenant school shooter.
In her diary, she talks about three different places she considered before the high school, and she
turned down each of those because she was worried the people were carrying guns there and would
stop her. How do you like that? Gee, can anybody honestly defend gun-free zones in any way,
shape, or form? You know what sickens me is there are many government jobs in my county.
And on their premises, you're not even allowed to have a firearm in your vehicle.
Yeah, it's federal property and it bypasses for the state law, which says, yes, you can keep a
firearm in your vehicle and, you know, at your place of employment. Now, the federal government
says, no, you can't. We're a DOD facility and you're going to abide by our rules or you don't work
out here. And yeah, I've got family members that work in these areas. They're not allowed to defend
themselves. And that's essentially the same thing that we're talking about here in this last half
of the program.
They're forced by law, by federal law. To be defenseless victims in waiting,
just waiting for the next scumbag to come in there with an evil AR-15 and a large capacity
magazine, knowing they will be undeterred for the most part,
or at least for probably the first 30 minutes before a reaction force can form. Yeah, and they'll
operate without fear of any armed resistance at all. I like what we're reading about and what we
talked about in this particular episode.
you know, bears some hopefulness for us. But again, I want to remind us, don't hang your hat on it.
Yeah, well, come on, Royce, these are small wins. Yep, and I take small wins. Thank you for any win
at this point. But again, we the people are the final arbiters of what is right and wrong in the
Constitution. If the courts cross the constitutional boundaries, we're not required to follow them
across that boundary. We're not required to acquiesce to it. We the people are the final arbiters.
We are the definers and the defenders of what is right and wrong when it comes to our supreme law.
This is the law of the people. It is ours. It has been purchased with blood.
And when we decide we're going to stand up and defend it with our own blood if necessary,
that's when we're going to have a free America again. Oh, come on, Roche, we're pretty free.
Look at other countries. Yeah, I do look at other countries, but those countries don't matter to
me. What matters to me is my country, and yes, my state. What matters to me is if my governments
throughout my entire country are aligning themselves with and upholding and defending the supreme
law that their state's constitution was formed in accordance with.
That's what I worry about. That's what I'm concerned about. More than that, I'm concerned that not
only will these people in high places not uphold and defend our Constitution, sadly,
there's too many keepers and bearers across our country who willingly just comply with every gun
law that comes down the pike without so much as a peep. Oh, well, it's the law. We've got to obey
it. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The Constitution is the supreme law in our government.
has to obey it, and we have the right to enforce it against them if necessary.
Never keep, never lose that thought. Always keep that in mind. Always maintain that attitude,
that spirit of resistance, and stay in contact with your reps. Stay armed up,
stay trained up, keep trauma supplies on hand at all times, and never forget, incoming rounds
always have the right of way. Voice out.