Whatever Happened to "Text and History"??

First Half:

The shotgun-like saturation of gun control laws being proposed in Michigan, and the literal blitzkrieg of anti-Constitution laws being proposed by the domestic enemies in the Virginia governor's office, and throughout the entire state government thereof.

Second Half:

The progress of the lawsuit to strike down the NFA.

Transcript

Freedom Guns is your local gun store for the Rockledge Cocoa area in Brevard County,
Florida. Stop in and meet Mike and the gang and see the great deals they have on long guns,
handguns, accessories, ammunition, AR build kits, and Liberty safes that come with free delivery
and installation. They're located at 1255 Florida Avenue, just north of Rockledge High School.
For more information, check them out at freedom-guns.com. heard about him on the Shooting
Straight Radio podcast.
The Gun Sight in Merritt Island is your one-stop shop for all of your Second Amendment needs.
Stop out there and see my friend Steve Kennedy and check out his nine-lane, 25-yard indoor
shooting range. He's got handgun rentals galore out there. If you want to try it before you buy it,
the Gun Sight in Merritt Island is where you need to go. Also, we've got a great selection of
ammunition, accessories, range bags. You name it, you'll find it out there at 125 South Banana
River. Drive in Merritt Island. Check him out at gunsightrange.com.
Make sure you tell Steve Kennedy that Royce Bartlett sent you.
Yes,
we are
indeed locked, loaded, and loud on the Shooting Straight radio podcast. This is the program all
about firearms with a heavy, heavy emphasis on the Second Amendment and all things pertaining
thereto. I am Royce, your also cute, cuddly, huggable, lovable, squeezable host,
still saturated with gunshot residue, toxic masculinity, and a faint yet oh-so-wildly tantalizing
whiff of the cologne of my people, and that would be Hop's number nine. I want to remind you,
you can catch this program on any podcast platform out there today. I'm pretty sure it's on all of
them. Let me know if I'm wrong by sending me the link to one of them that it's not on, and I'll
make sure it gets landed on there very soon. You can also follow us on Farcebook and Instagram.
You can check out the logo there. I mean, look for the logo there and do a like and a share.
I post articles and other... posts and things like that regarding the Second Amendment,
the Constitution, and the United States of America. So give us a like and a share,
and I sure will appreciate that. If you want to reach out to me, shootingstraightradiopodcast at
gmail.com or shootingstraightradioshow at gmail.com. And I always respond very quickly.
The links to all my sponsors are on each episode page. Scroll down, hit the links, check them out.
And when you use their services or purchase some of their merchandise,
please make sure you tell them you heard about them on the Shooting Straight radio podcast. And I
sure will thank you. So I had somebody send me a link to...
review page for this program. And so, of course, I had to click on it and read some of the reviews.
And wow, thank you all so much. Of course, there's always a negative one or two.
And yes, I'm going to read them too. But I'm going to share a couple of these and say thank you to
whomever left them. They don't give... distinct names a lot of them are nicknames but here's one it
says i can't even express how grateful i am for patriots like this that are willing to publicly
expose evil corrupt leadership that we are under right now we need more men and women like royce
with the intestinal fortitude to stand up and expose the lies and corruption that has completely
taken over and has infested our country like a disease amen brother We all need to do our part and
follow the example that's being shown here and courage shown to stand up to these evil anti
-American leaders. We have to stand together and be willing to pay the unlimited price like our
founding fathers did. Amen, man. Amen. This show is right on target with everything I've heard.
God bless you, Royce, and everything, I'm sorry, and everyone out there that supports and listens
to this show. It's time to stand together. Amen, man, amen.
If our founders, and I've said this often, so we are certainly like-minded, if our founders can
pledge their everything, up to and including their life, for the preservation of the Constitution
and the nation of the United States, how should we pay a lesser sacrifice?
I'd love, I mean, spot on, yes. Our lives, our fortunes,
and our sacred honor should be sacrificed to the cause and the continuance of liberty and freedom
that's protected by the Constitution. Another one, who says I'm an extremist,
says this host is the poster boy for the reason there's so much opposition to the Second Amendment
and responsible gun ownership. Really? I'm the cause of the opposition?
No, the opposition is natural. The opposition is organic because it springs from evil.
Yeah, you're welcome. It springs from people who think that the government is supposed to be all
-powerful while the people are subservient. Yeah, that's where you get your viewpoint from.
He said, his point of view is the reason I'm prepping to make sure the war that he and like-minded
people cause stays off my lawn. Best of luck to you, sir. Yeah,
best of luck to you too, sir. I don't think you have your head screwed on quite as well as you
think. I'm not sure why you're prepping to make sure this war stays off your lawn.
I got news for you. When the war comes to our neighborhoods, sir, any sign you put out front that
says I'm not with them or anything else or I hate Donald Trump is not going to save you.
So if you want to prep for that war, sir, how about you go ahead and arm yourself and start freely
exercising a right you were born with that's enumerated in the Second Amendment. How about we go
there? Another one. Uh, try armed American radio and gun for hire podcast.
They're all great podcasts like shooting straight and whoever left that you're not wrong. Those are
great podcasts and I'm going to go ahead and promote them right here. Yes. Free of charge is get
involved with all pro two, a groups and. Keep voting. Amen and amen.
Here's another one. Royce is always on point and funny with the Second Amendment news.
Thank you. Another one says, the best gun show on podcast today. Great info and honest host.
Thank you all, one and all. And yes, even for the negative feedback, I really appreciate every bit
of it. Thank you that you're listening. And thank you that you're leaving comments and let me know
how things are going. I know, again, I say this show resonates with people simply because I know
that you guys think the same way I do. And that's why this resonates with you.
Let's dive into things. We're going to get into a couple of articles in the first half of the
program, and then we're going to look at the ongoing lawsuit against the NFA with people trying to
have it shut down. And good, it needs to be not only shut down, it needs to be burnt down and
scattered to the four winds along with the ATF. Here's the article by Mark Chestnut.
Let's see, Michigan. Michigan Democrat lawmakers are pushing gun restrictions.
Of course they are. You know why? Because they're treasonous enemies of the Constitution.
They are domestic enemies. The Democrat Communist Party is the largest domestic enemy organization
in America today, bar none. And if you think I'm being hyperbolic in saying that,
I don't think you're paying close attention to who they are and what they are and what they've done
and what they are doing. So here's the article. It's probably a bad sign when your legislature has
a quote-unquote firearm safety caucus, since for many Democrats firearm safety is code for gun
control, and he's not wrong there. Such is the case in Michigan, where the Firearms Safety Caucus
is pushing a plethora of gun control schemes in the state legislature.
including a ban on common firearm magazines that come standard with many guns and opening up gun
makers to lawsuits for misuse of their lawfully made and legally sold, uh, sold products.
And I might add by third parties. Yeah. Um, it,
it doesn't shock me that this is going on. They, they are doing their best to disarm us.
You know that I know that they know that. Everything else is just pretentious.
That's really what it all boils down to. Not only that, people that are totally ignorant about
firearms, how they operate, what they do, and so forth, have no business crafting laws against
people who own them peaceably and lawfully.
and responsibly. Yeah, sometimes I mix words together because my brain rushes ahead of my mouth.
Sorry about that. The article continues. According to a report at WPEV.com,
Democrats in the State House of Representatives in Michigan are pushing a magazine ban.
Gee, this sounds familiar, doesn't it? A ban on bump stock devices. Where have we heard that
before? A ban on gun ownership by young adults 18 to 20 years old.
Oh, my goodness. This is the quintessential wish list of all Democrat communists in America today.
And it's also the precursor to registration, confiscation, and eventually camps and genocide.
And let's see. A three-day waiting period between purchase and taking possession of a firearm and
a measure. that would allow state-level lawsuits against gun manufacturers and require firearm
dealers to carry at least $1 million in liability insurance. And tell me how this is going to
impact the criminal underground market at all. Yeah, yeah. You remember how many times I've said
here that communists always attempt to pass laws that counter laws they don't like.
one of them being the PLCAA, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act.
And this is not the first state trying to give themselves the authority somehow to circumvent the
PLCAA by giving themselves the so-called illegal authority.
to allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers based on third-party criminal misuse.
They think, well, we can do it on the state level. We are sovereign as a state. We can do that.
But no, you can't. You may not. Because there is a federal freaking... Actually, there are two laws
that say you may not. The first and foremost, and the most supreme of which...
is the Constitution, the Second Amendment in particular. The second is the PLCAA.
You don't get to come along and say, well, we're going to just bypass all that crap and just do it
on the state level. You don't have that authority. You do understand that we have two sets of laws
in this country which run counter to each other now. I'm sure most of you know that by now.
We have the Supreme Law, and then we have tens of thousands of laws that run contrary thereto.
And these proposals are seeking here in Michigan to add even more.
And I can only assume that the filthy communists and their equally vile and disgusting vermin
Muslim cohorts hope that their laws will eventually overwhelm ours by sheer numbers.
Yeah, well, that ain't the way it works, because there's millions upon millions and tens of
millions of us, well over 100 million of us, actually, that still adhere to the supreme law and
give it primacy over all other laws. So what are you going to do about us when we say,
screw your laws?
Addressing the waiting period. Democrat Communist Representative Helena Scott used the same
inaccurate talking points that have been used in every state that has attempted such a restriction.
And she told the news channel, which was, what was that again? WPEV.
She said, this is a straightforward safeguard designed to slow down moments of crisis.
Really? How so? And what data can you produce to show that waiting periods do anything to reduce or
prevent gun crimes or suicides, or suing gun makers has any effect on violent crime?
You all know as well as we do... that you are trying to disarm we the people.
You're trying to cut off the supply of arms and ammunition. We don't have time to go into Illinois'
band today where they're trying to serialize ammunition. We'll do that for another show.
But you guys are constantly attacking the Second Amendment. You're attacking amendments that you
don't like. You are attacking the Supreme Law because it puts you in a place of check.
It puts you in a place of powerlessness to rule like you want to.
And I'm glad of that. With more than that, I'm glad we the people are armed to the teeth enough to
back up what we say and to back up our defense of the Constitution.
So it says, as for the gun ban for those under 21, states with such laws are currently fighting to
keep... alive in courts throughout the nation. And we've referenced them many times here.
In fact, the federal courts of appeals are intractably divided over the constitutionality of laws
that restrict the ability of 18 to 20 year olds to acquire or carry firearms. Well,
I tell you what, if you use the text and history, a standard of the Bruin decision,
you will find out that militia members back in the colonial days went from ages 16 to 60.
So what do you mean? So does that mean if you, if you kind of raise that to 18,
all right, I'm sorry, from 18 to 21, even. Oh, does that mean you're going to go back into history
and say, well, after you turn 60, you have to give up your firearms? Because mark my words,
they will try to do something like that. But if you're 18 years old, and we discussed this in the
last episode, and you can write contracts and sign your name to them and take out loans and start
businesses and vote and every other right. it enumerated in the Bill of Rights,
you're able to freely exercise it, then you should be able to freely exercise that one that these
Democrat communists all hate, and that's the right to keep and bear arms. It says,
while the 11th Circuit upheld Florida's ban on adults in this age group purchasing any firearm from
any source, at a panel... a panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a similar
Colorado age ban. A panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently found unconstitutional the
federal ban on 18 to 20-year-olds purchasing handguns from licensed dealers. Remember I said in
the last episode what this is really all about? Yes, there's over 30 million 18 to 20-year-olds
here in the United States of America. You figure if only 10% of them would stand up and fight with
the rest of us adults, that adds 3 million to our ranks. That's why they're doing this.
They know this. They know what they're doing. This has nothing to do with public safety. They know
it. We know it. Let's just quit pretending, okay? Says, lastly,
concerning allowing frivolous lawsuits against gun makers, such lawsuits... the criminal use or
misuse of legally made and sold products are a hallmark of the Democrat anti-rights wish list.
In fact, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act forbids lawsuits against gun makers when
their lawful products are misused by violent criminals like ATF agents and Democrats.
Still, the Michigan Democrats are pushing the entire list of proposals hoping one or two will make
it through the legislative process, and this is what they do. They saturate an area with,
let's just call them legislative projectiles, so to speak,
and hope some of them hit their mark. This is shotgun legislation at its finest.
Fortunately, with Republicans controlling the statehouse in Michigan, chances are slim that any of
the proposals will make their way to the governor's desk. But you can count on them never giving
up. That's the problem. They're not going to stop. If they're defeated once, they'll come back
again. And they'll keep coming back. And they're going to keep trying until they get what they
want. They're playing the long game. And you guys out there and you gals out there, you better be
ready for it. I've said before, eventually they'll win the long game, and you better be ready to
fight for your rights at that point, because they will be coming for us, and we will have to fight
them. Just keep that in mind. Now, here's an article from World Tribune,
the staff there, from March 23rd. And this takes us back to Virginia,
which is one heck of a battleground right now. And hats off to the VCDL and all of you patriots
there in Virginia. And what you are doing to stand up to those filthy, nasty,
godless communist pigs like Spanberger, your lieutenant governor, and your AG,
Mr. Johnson, and all the other enemies of America there. Thank you for what you're doing.
You stand up and you point your finger at them and say, go ahead and pass all the laws you want.
We're not going to play along. We're not going to comply. And if you try to enforce them, we have
the right to resist with whatever force you dictate. That's the best way to handle them.
That's all these scumbags understand is force. All right. Just keep that in mind.
I'm not saying go attack government agencies and attack government institutions. I'm saying we like
those. Men on the Lexington green that day stand there in the face of those haughty British and
say, if you want to fight, you're going to find one here, but we're standing between you and your
confiscation of our arms. And if you try, if you start with us, we're going to fire back.
And that's where we need to be mentally and certainly emotionally. We need to always be ready to
have that minute man mindset. So here's an article. Virginia legislature passes 15 anti-gun laws
in just 60 days. People, they are on a blitzkrieg. Yes, again, notice the shotgun saturation of
laws. Sadly, they have the ability to run them through.
But sadly for them, y'all don't have to comply according to the supreme law.
Here's the article by the World Tribune staff. In just 60 days in 2026,
Virginia's Democrat-controlled legislature has passed 15 anti-gun, I call them anti-rights,
gun laws. Democrat Governor Abigail Spanberger, a filthy, godless communist Marxist pig,
I added that part, who campaigned as a moderate, oh my word, but governs as an absolute leftist,
absolute leftist totalitarian twit, has promised to sign all 15 into law.
Well, I'm going to add to that. And therefore, all Virginians should be just as bold in their open
defiance of these laws. More than that, they should be calling for the removal, arrest,
trial, and conviction of all the Democrat communists involved in this treasonous attempt to disarm
the people of Virginia. And yes, it is an act of treason. Make no mistake about it.
Every gun control law is an act of treason. It's treasonous aggression.
It's treasonous assault on the militia. Yes, the people are the militia and the militia are the
people. And when you attempt to disarm us, you are attempting to overthrow your state or your
country. That's exactly what it boils down to. So,
the new constitutional... illegal laws include HB 217 and SB 749,
which is an assault weapons ban, of course, prohibits the future sale, import, and manufacture of
specific semi-automatic firearms and magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. Oh,
but they'll let you keep your legally owned firearms acquired before July 1st,
2026. You know, it's a grandfather clause. It's a temporary grandfather clause,
I assure you. HB-40 and SB-323 ghost gun ban.
Bans of possession, sale, or manufacture of untraceable, un-serialized firearms.
Well, why would they want to ban them? Because they can't control. them. SB 763,
an excise tax imposed on the sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers.
HB 93, SB 38, HB 19, SB 160 enhances restrictions on gun possession for individuals who are subject
to protective orders and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses.
HB 871 and SB 348, that's more that secure storage crap,
which is nothing more than an attempted circumvention of the Fourth Amendment. HB 21 establishes
new standards of quote-unquote responsible conduct for the firearm industry.
How ironic, considering these laws are all crafted by the party. that has produced essentially 99
.9% of all mass shooters. You're welcome. Yes, I did say that. You don't believe me,
do your own research on this. Yes, if you Democrats would stop shooting people,
these mass shootings would all but disappear. If you Democrat communist trans wackos and you incel
freaks, would stop trying to take out on society all of your little fears and anxieties by killing
a bunch of us, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.
It says the Democrats' assault on the Second Amendment is far from finished. Other proposed laws
include age requirements, of course, the 18 to 20 thing. public carry restrictions,
a five-day waiting period, and so on and so forth. Chris Stone,
who was the director of the state and local affairs of GOA, and if you're not a member of GOA,
why not? You need to be. He wrote in a March 23rd op-ed for Fox News Digital and said,
the Democrats' crown jewel is the two so-called assault weapons bills.
And he made this comment. He said, make no mistake, SB 749 and HB 217 have nothing to do with
safety, but we all know that, brother, and everything to do with removing your Second Amendment
rights.
This legislation targets the most popular firearms in America, tools used by millions of law
-abiding Americans for self-defense, competition, and sport. According to the FBI,
nearly twice as many people are murdered with hands and fists than by rifles of any kind,
and over three times as many are killed with knives. Yet, anti-rights radicals want us to believe
that semi-automatic firearms must be banned. Well, they want us to believe that because they want
us to go along with that, so we will hand over our guns and then they can rule us.
You know, just like New Yorkers are ruled under the iron thumb of the Democrat Communist Party in
New York City especially. Yes, they have taken over the state. Look at California.
What a sewer of violent crime and lawlessness.
And what created that? Democrat policies did, of course. Stone continued,
but by arbitrarily labeling semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns as assault firearms,
you know what they're doing? They're assigning a particular felonious behavior to the object in
hopes of impugning and maligning and denigrating those who own them. That's what that is.
assault firearms based on common features like folding stocks or threaded barrels.
The anti-gunners are actively removing your ability to defend yourself and your family with the
tool of your choice. Furthermore, the legislation takes aim at standard capacity magazines,
labeling anything over 15 rounds as a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
George Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which states, That a well-regulated militia
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, war arms,
is the proper, natural, and safest defense of a free state.
Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That is in the declaration, the Virginia Declaration of Bill of Rights there.
So these people are attacking that. They're attacking the Bill of Rights in the Supreme Law.
These people are nothing but treasonous scumbags who need to be arrested, tried,
convicted, and yes, hanged by their neck until they're dead. Stone noted,
By stripping Virginians of these tools, Spanberger and her allies are intentionally shifting the
balance of power from the people to the state, amen, and jeopardizing liberty and freedom in the
process. It's clear they have forgotten, or worse yet, are purposefully ignoring the motto of this
great commonwealth, Sic Semper Tyrannus, which translates to,
thus always to tyrants. Yeah, I might add, worse yet,
Spanberger and her fellow totalitarian swine are committing a flagrant act of treason by even
proposing. the disarmament of the citizens of Virginia, because they're intentionally attempting to
disarm the people, and in so doing, they're assaulting their constitutionally protected security.
And yeah, I say again, they should all be hanged for their efforts. Yes, I said hanged,
as in hanged by the neck until dead, after they, of course, have been arrested, tried,
and convicted, and given their due process, yes, due process first. Even for treasonous traitorous
pieces of crap My two cents, these domestic enemies That have somehow slithered into power there in
Virginia Need to be hit from multiple fronts And first one is outright defiance by the people And
the gun industry And we are seeing that defiance in Virginia God bless the VCDL Yes,
God bless all of you guys out there standing up in the face of this trash Then they need to be
charged with treason. Then they should all be charged again under 18 USC 241 and 242.
241 is conspiracy to deprive people of their rights under color of law.
And 242 is the actual deprivation of rights under color of law.
They should be tried, convicted, and hanged. Because until we start hanging the traitors that lurk
among us, not going to be free from the outside influences with which they collude.
Be right back after this brief commercial timeout. And as soon as we hear from the world's finest
sponsors, we'll be back to cover the lawsuit suing to overturn the National Firearms Act of 1934.
We got more to go here on Shooting Straight.
This is your humble host, and I am proud and honored to say that Sicario's Gun Shop is a sponsor of
the Shooting Straight Radio podcast. They're up on North Wickham Road in Melbourne. They are your
full-service gun store. They offer a wide range of firearms, including Class III and NFA weapons,
ammo and accessories, gunsmithing. If you want to buy or trade, head on down to Sicario's Gun Shop.
They also offer transfer service, custom builds. If you need a muzzle device pinned and welded, no
problem. They can do that too. Coatings, refinishings, cleanings, survival safety items. Sicario's
Gun Shop is your full-service gun store in North Melbourne. They also have a fine selection of gun
safes to choose from. Check them out at Sicario'sGunShop.com. Make sure you tell them you heard
about them on Shooting Straight. Sicario's Gun Shop, where you come first for your second.
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 discussing various things in the first half. Proposed treasonous laws in Michigan and in
Virginia. And those battlegrounds are heating up. By the way, just a little sidebar. If you'll
notice, these laws and these attempted takeovers of each individual state,
they're all happening in kind of an encircling pattern.
Watch Texas, watch North Carolina, watch South Carolina,
and every state. That is, that is on one of our borders of this country.
Yeah. And the reason they're trying to, they're working so hard to disarm Virginians is because go
ahead and call me crazy right now. If you want to, where is Washington DC in relation to Virginia?
Yeah, it's pretty much in there in Virginia, as I understand it.
Well, gee, That would probably kind of be like a forward operating base for the Democrat Communist
Party and their Muslim allies. So close to Washington,
D.C. Hmm. What could possibly go wrong? Well,
I told you before the break we were going to discuss the challenge to the NFA and their
registration schemes, and I'll be heavily referencing an article from Ammo Land.
and you should follow them online. Great people, great articles, great authors, and staunch
defenders of your rights. This is from March 24th, and from the Ammoland editor,
Duncan Johnson. The federal judge in Missouri has ordered additional briefing and a closely watched
challenge to the National Firearms Act, signaling that the case raises serious unresolved questions
about the government's post-tax treatment of the National Firearms Act firearms or NFA firearms,
as well as the Second Amendment status of suppressors and short-barreled rifles. Okay.
I can help the judge in this. And judge, I know you probably don't listen to this program.
I'm probably beneath your venue, your purview, whatever. But I can help you with this.
Let me help you make this decision. It's really easy. It really is. Simply look up the word arms in
any Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, which you can find online. and you'll see what the founders
intended by the word arms. Any arm used for warfare is protected by the Second Amendment and
perfectly legal for we the people to own. So just start there.
Start there, okay? By the same token, Your Honor, a quick glance at the phrase shall not be
infringed should settle things once and for all. If you look up the word infringed,
It means delayed, hindered, violated, broken. All of those things apply. So if you go by the text
in history standard, which was applied in Bruin, this case should already be over and the NFA
should be struck down because it was passed and it was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court says, well, Congress has the right to tax. After all, they don't have the right to tax a
right. They never did have that right. Okay, that's an infringement.
It's funny. No one has really tried to tax too many of the other rights. They tried to tax the
First Amendment, of course, yeah. But you don't have to pay a tax to keep cops from kicking your
door in without a warrant. Hmm. For now, anyway, if they get their safe storage laws passed,
pretty soon that'll be circumvented. But anyway,
this... at those phrases, arms, the word arms and the phrase shall not be infringed.
That should settle things once and for all. Infringement is anything that even minutely hinders the
free exercise of the right, including taxes or any form of registration. Because if you had to take
time to register something, that is an infringement. You're saying you may not exercise that right
until you do what we tell you to do. A bull fertilizer? I was born with the right. You can go pound
sand. This is what fries my backside like bacon. I'm going to tell you right now. The simple,
plain wording of the text of any of the amendments should be sufficient for any citizen,
any police officer, and any judge when making decisions based thereon.
Why has there been untold millions of dollars in countless... hours of time wasted on arguing
foolish suppositions and assumptions and guesswork dedicated to trying to figure out what our
founders intended, while the plain text of the Consta-freaking-tution is all but ignored,
huh? Let me give you, I know I'm running off the trail here, I don't care, bear with me for just a
minute. You know, look at the Fourth Amendment, just for an example. You understand?
The Fourth Amendment has been butchered to a place today where it can be circumvented easily by a
police officer simply saying, I smell weed. I smell alcohol. And then they'll tell you,
I've already given myself probable cause. You've got to get out of the car. I'm searching your car.
Without a warrant? Yes. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects. Okay, so it's not just the houses,
it's the people themselves. They are allowed to be secure in their persons and in their papers and
their effects against any unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants.
for searches or seizures, shall issue but upon probable cause, which must be,
I'm adding a couple of words for clarification, which must be supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
So that means the proper order is, number one, The official has to present their evidence of
probable cause to a judge and say, I need a warrant to search this particular property or this
particular vehicle or this particular person. That's what it means.
Read it for yourself. I'm not making this up. He then, whoever the official is,
the law enforcement official,
So I did some research on the progression, the downward progression,
of the limitations placed on the Fourth Amendment by erroneous laws.
And I got this right off of the government website. It says, in the early days of the automobile,
the court created an exception for searches of vehicles. Who gave them the authority to create
exceptions for this amendment? The Constitution sure as heck did not.
What do you mean they created? An exception. You don't have creative license,
courts. None of you do. You don't get to add to or detract from the wording of the amendments.
You are to uphold them primarily. That is your first order of business,
the protection and the upholding of the Constitution, period. And they held in Carroll v.
United States that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search
has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. Who gave them that right to
create that proviso? The Fourth Amendment and the plain text of the Fourth Amendment says they
don't have that right. But you're saying, okay, well, we say they do in this particular instance.
No, you create that particular instance, you create a snowball effect. Because now there are people
having their homes searched. When police walk up and knock on their doors, people say, well, I
smell marijuana, so I'm coming in. And they're lying through their teeth most of the time. They
know they're not smelling marijuana. They are using this unconstitutional, unlawful tool to violate
and circumvent the Fourth Amendment protections of the people. They know that. I know that.
Anybody with the brain of a boiled freaking cabbage knows that too. So it says they may be searched
without warrant. If the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the
vehicle contains contraband, the court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to
be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant.
In other words, the government will be shorthanded here. Well,
it ain't about the government and protecting government interests. It's about protecting the people
and their interests.
And if you have such an issue, well, why don't you just follow the vehicle to wherever it's going
and then call for a warrant for that particular place? How about do that?
And also that include the vehicle in it. But just simply say, given yourself probable cause by
uttering the magic phrase, I smell alcohol on your breath or I smell marijuana,
your eyes look a little bit watery. So what? Get a warrant.
This constitutionally repugnant exception has opened up a Pandora's box of other court rulings
based on this very same fallacious reasoning where judges and justices use the same reasoning to go
even further from the foundation of the Fourth Amendment. This ruling erred basically on the side
of the government, not the people, which makes it highly erroneous today. Like I said, to the point
where all they have to do is say, I smell something, so I'm searching your car. You know, they
claimed in their reasoning. That the advent of the automobile somehow gave authorities this
exceptional power to circumvent the proper order of the Fourth Amendment.
And that's akin to saying, well, the advent of the rifle, the AR-15,
that gives the government the right to violate the Second Amendment. You see the progression there,
or should I call it a digression? They've done the same thing to all the other amendments. All
right. Sorry for the rabbit trail. That had to come out. Now, back to the article.
In Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and Really, Really Big Fires,
Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark of the Eastern District of Missouri issued an order on
March 24, 2026, directing both sides to file supplemental briefs on several threshold and
constitutional issues before the court moves further into the case. The lawsuit was filed after
Congress through the one big beautiful bill. Act, reduced the NFA's excise tax for most covered
firearms to zero while leaving the NFA's registration regime in place.
According to the order, the plaintiffs argue that Congress exceeded its enumerated powers by
keeping the registration system intact after stripping away the tax that had been long used to
justify the statute. Well, not only that, they're violating
I'm tripping over my tongue here and my brain, trying to jog my memory. The Firearm Owner
Protection Act. Thank you.
It's very plainly written in the Firearm Owner Protection Act that registration and keeping a
registration of firearms is prohibited. But gee,
that didn't stop them, did it? Well, no law stops the lawless, and the ATF is about as lawless as
you can get. The plaintiffs also argue that the NFA's regulation of short-barreled rifles and
suppressors violates the Second Amendment, because it does, of course. It also mandated the tasking
of a sickeningly evil agency created by the IRS, known as the ATF. And they were handed the
regulatory part of it. And we all know how disastrously that has gone ever since and all the
murders and other violent crimes committed by the ATF. Yeah.
Says in addition to individual plaintiffs, Chris Brown and Alan Mayville, the lawsuit includes
prime protection, STL LLC, and a coalition of prominent gun rights groups,
including the NRA. Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and the American
Suppressor Association. The defendants are the ATF, Acting Director Daniel P.
Driscoll, the Department of Justice, and Attorney General Pamela J. Blondie. Judge Clark's order
makes clear that the court has not yet ruled on the merits. It does not strike down the NFA in
joint enforcement or hold that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail, but what it does show...
is that the court believes the case presents several novel issues, quote-unquote, that require
focused briefing before the litigation can advance. Well, so we'll be keeping an eye out for the
movements on this case. The court also focuses on standing. They focus first on standing,
according to the article. The first issue the court once answered is whether the plaintiffs have
Article III standing to bring the case at all, because this is a pre-enforcement challenge.
The plaintiffs are not claiming they have already been prosecuted. Well, they shouldn't have to.
Instead, they argue that they want to engage in conduct involving NFA-covered firearms without
complying with the NFA, but are refraining from doing so because they fear the federal government.
Rightfully so. plenty of stories of, you know, rampant violence and murder committed by the ATF.
So yeah, when you're facing a band of murderers who say they're going to come kick your door in and
probably kill you and your family dead and definitely shoot your dog, then yeah, that's going to
keep me from enjoying a right that I lawfully possess, that I was born with,
actually. Judge Clark noted that in a pre-enforcement case, plaintiffs must show that the
threatened enforcement is sufficiently imminent. Well, how are you completely blanking kidding me?
If enforcement is threatened, it is imminent. If they say if you violate this law.
We will come kick your door in in the middle of the night, drag you out in handcuffs, stuff you
into a cell, try you, convict you, and imprison you for 10 years and a quarter million dollar fine.
That is sufficiently imminent. What is wrong with you, Judge Judge Clark?
and they intend to engage in conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest.
He specifically ordered the parties to address whether the plaintiffs claimed injury in count one,
the argument that Congress improperly exercised its enumerated powers, it did, is tied to a
personal constitutional interest or is instead a generalized grievance that federal courts cannot
hear. Okay. I don't understand how this judge cannot easily surmise that this does indeed affect
all Americans that wish to freely and responsibly exercise their God-given right to keep and bear
arms, all arms for war.
That question could be important. The article says, if the court finds the plaintiffs lack standing
on that part of the case, it could narrow the dispute, even if the broader Second Amendment claims
remain alive. The judge also ordered a briefing. On common use and dangerous and unusual,
those two fallacious standards, this in common use standard is bull fertilizer.
I've talked about this before. Lewis and Clark carried an air rifle called the Girondoni air rifle.
It was a very novel firearm for its day. It was not in common use.
You could fill it up with air, and there was an air reservoir in the butt of it.
It had about a 20 to 25-round magazine, fired 46 to 54 caliber balls at roughly 500 feet per
second. It terrified the Native Americans when they come up against it because it gave no smoke
signature, which would give away the shooter's position. Plus, it had repetitious fire
capabilities, and it terrified the Dickens out of them. They couldn't see who was shooting at them,
and they couldn't figure it out until they got hit, and even then maybe not. But the Girondani air
rifle was not in common use. Neither was the Kaltov repeater. Both of those were too expensive,
and there were not enough craftsmen that could... build the intricate valve systems for the
Girondani or the repeating capability of the Kowtoff. The Kowtoff was a repeater built on the
Flintlock platform, believe it or not, but it had a 15 to 20 round magazine.
There were even some that boasted close to a 30. And there was actually one army,
and I don't remember which army, but they had an entire company. of these men,
of men sporting these Kowtoff repeaters, and their firepower volume was,
wow. It would level hundreds and hundreds and even thousands of the enemy in one volley.
And you imagine repetitious volleys, one right after the other, up to 20 rounds at a time. Man,
they kicked butt. But the Kowtoff repeater was not in common use. Neither was the Girondani air
rifle. Neither was the puckle gun. Look it up on, look, look up the puckle gun. Matter of fact,
Google it on, um, uh, on Google images. It's a pretty, pretty, uh,
pretty creepy looking gun. It really is. It was a crew served weapon on top of that. So the court
wanted questions answered here. And they said that, uh, dealing with the dangerous and unusual and
in common use things. They wanted some, they wanted questions answered along those fallacious
standards. Oh, that weapon is dangerous and unusual. Okay,
morons. And I'm speaking to the judiciary. If it's a weapon by rights and by inherent,
what should I say? Inherent properties. It's dangerous.
That's why it's called a weapon. Yeah, hate to bombard common sense off your noggin,
but there it is. And just because something is unusual doesn't mean we can't have it.
If it's an arm for war, the people have a natural born right to it.
Whether you want to agree with that or not, doesn't matter. That is what the founders intended.
That is why they wrote the Second Amendment the way they did. They said these are not small
questions. How the court answers them could affect how lower courts analyze not just short
-barreled rifle restrictions, but other modern arms-related challenges as well. Well,
how about the court analyze them in the light of the freaking text and history of the Second
Amendment? It should come down to two questions. Are the arms in question suitable for battle?
Yes? Then their ownership and their use are therefore protected by the Second Amendment.
Their ownership and use by the people are protected by the Second Amendment,
and the government has no authority to ban their use or even hinder our acquisition of them.
Second, Has anyone been denied their ownership and use because of the law in question?
If yes, then the plaintiffs prevail and the NFA gets struck down.
Now, they're also saying, well, suppressors, they get their own threshold questions and such.
Should they be treated as arms? Well, no, they shouldn't. They're accessories, just like a
foregrip, just like a shroud, just like a pistol grip,
anything like that. They're just like a magazine. They're an accessory, but they're vital ones
designed to protect the hearing of the user. So if they're made for the protection of the hearing
of the user, who are you to tell us, no, you guys have to lose your hearing. Sorry. Yeah, I know we
have earmuffs and all that crap, but that's not the point. How many of you guys are going to jump
up and put your earmuffs on in the middle of the night when you hear something go bump in the
night? Yeah, me neither. But I will pick up a suppressed AR-15 and start smoking bad dudes if they
come into my home. Yes, and a suppressed pistol too. You're welcome.
They said, in so doing, the order cites several cases describing silencers. They don't silence
anything. I don't know why they're called that. As accessories rather than weapons in themselves.
Well, good. That's the way it should be. That does not mean the court has opposed, I'm sorry, that
the court has adopted that view. But it shows that the suppressor portion of the case may turn
first on a threshold definitional question before the court ever reaches historical analogs or
broader constitutional balancing. What do you mean constitutional balancing? Since when does the
Constitution need to be balanced with something else? For Second Amendment advocates, that issue is
critical because suppressor litigation has increasingly focused on whether these devices should be
treated as protected arms, protected components of arms, or merely regulated accessories outside
the Amendment's core protection. Who says you're allowed to regulate them at all,
huh? The court also raises shall issue and ATF abuse questions.
The order also points to a more recent appellate development. Judge Clark cited the Fifth Circuit's
decision in U.S. v. Peterson, which held that the NFA's registration regime is,
quote, presumptively constitutional because it is a shall issue regime. Okay,
whoever presumed that needs to be shot. How do you presume something's constitutional when it is a
flagrant hindrance to the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms? Registration is a
delay, and a right delayed is a right denied, and therefore it's an infringement.
And if you haven't registered it, you can spend 10 years of your life in federal prison. It's a
freaking infringement. The Missouri court now wants the parties to address whether the NFA truly is
a shall issue system. It's not. If so, whether such regimes are automatically or presumptively
constitutional under Helen and Bruin. No, they're not. There, fixed it for you. Just as important,
Judge Clark asked the parties to brief whether ATF has applied the NFA, quote unquote,
towards abusive ends. Yes, they have. through exorbitant fees or lengthy wait times,
you know, like a year and a half, like it used to be for stamps, invoking language from Bruins
footnote number nine. For now, the order should be read as a procedural development.
However, it shows the court is taking a serious look at whether the NFA can continue to function as
it has after Congress zeroed out the tax for most covered firearms.
and whether the government's regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles can survive under
the Supreme Court's current Second Amendment framework. Okay, if there is a Second Amendment
framework for today's Supreme Court, it should be the Constitution,
period. No court precedents, no court rulings, the text and history of the amendment itself.
Well, let's see what Mr. Tinch Cox had to say about this, because you've heard me reference him
before. He wrote an article for the Pennsylvania Gazette back in February 20th of 1788,
and in it he made this comment. And this ought to help clear things up for all of you
constitutionally ignorant judges. He said, he asked a rhetorical question,
two of them actually. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it fear then that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?
Congress has no power, in other words, no constitutional authority to disarm the militia.
Okay, let me just pause right there. That means you have no right, Congress,
any Congress of any state, or the federal Congress,
you have no constitutional authority to take even one. particular firearm from our grasp.
Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American.
And the next comment that he makes totally washes away all of that garbage where people say,
well, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. Let's see what Mr. Tenchcock said about that.
The unlimited power of the sword. is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments,
but where I trust in God, it will ever remain in the hands of the people.
Amen. That ought to help clear up this NFA question once and for all. You would think that it
would. And of course, all these people up there making these decisions fancy themselves to be
constitutional scholars. They're not. Most of them are just attorneys who know how to argue and
therefore argue people away from their rights. But most of them are constitutionally dyslexic and
don't have a good firm foundation in the Constitution. And that's... the issue we're up against
here because too many of them up there are domestic enemies of the Constitution. Every one of them
up there with a D after their name is a domestic enemy of the Constitution and way too freaking
many of them with an R after their name follow suit because birds of a feather flock together.
Just because they got an R after their name doesn't mean they're not a domestic enemy of the
Constitution. They are. So, my fellow keepers and bearers,
Let us maintain within ourselves this continued spirit of defiance and resistance against all
tyrannies against we the people and our constitutionally enumerated and protected rights.
Let's pray for our brethren in Virginia, in Michigan, and all the other battleground states going
through all this garbage right now and they're trying to disarm the people. Keep them in your
prayers and lend any assistance that you can. Stay in contact with your rep.
Stay armed up. Stay trained up. Stock up on beans, bullets, and bandages.
And never forget, incoming rounds always have the right of way. Royce out.