Give All 'Assault Weapons' Bans the Bruen Beatings They Deserve

With a recent injunction preventing the Constitutionally-dyslexic Virginia State Police and all attorneys general across the state from enforcing the illegal "assault weapons" ban that is set to steal power from the People of Virginia on July 1, the violent Democrat communist AG, Jay "Two Bullets" Jones, who has talked about shooting political opponents and their children (with "two in the head"), is urging all local police to enforce it regardless, since they are not specifically named in the injunction. But the Virginia State Constitution is also in play, and Bruen principles may slap the entire law down.

The recent Wolford decision that shot down Hawaii's so-called "Vampire Rule" for concealed carriers has now become a potential catalyst for striking down New Jersey's own "assault weapons" law with Bruen principles, not to mention the other ten states with such illegal laws.

WJS Guns
Gun and Outdoor Shop, ammo, accessories, fishing tackle, more

Freedom Guns
Firearms, Ammunition, Accessories, Training classes

Sicarios Gun Shop
Firearms, Accessories, Ammo, Safes, and more!

The Gun Site
9-Lane 25 yard indoor Shooting Range, Gun Store, Training classes

SHOOTINGCLASSES.COM
Online business operations platform for firearms instructors, trainees, and Shooting Ranges

Glover Orndorf and Flanagan Wealth Mgmt.
Wealth management services

Control Jiu-Jitsu/MMA
Jiu-Jitsu/MMA Training in Melbourne, FL

Counter Strike Tactical
Best Little Gun Store in Melbourne, Florida! Veteran Owned and Operated 321-499-4949

Go2 Weapons
Manufacturers of AR platform rifles for military and civilian. Veteran Owned and Operated

Ear Care of Melbourne
Need hearing aids? Go to the audiologists that gave Royce his hearing back!

Quantified Performance
Quantified Performance, LLC is focused on building safe, high performing keepers and bearers.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

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.
Right
now
you heard the man. We're locked, loaded, and loud on the Shooting Straight radio podcast.
This is all about firearms with a heavy emphasis on the Second Amendment and all things pertaining
thereto. I am Royce, your oh-so-cute, cuddly, huggable, lovable, squeezable host,
still pouring it to you from both barrels with 100% felt recoil and no suppressor at all.
Those of you still wanting decals, reach out to me. I've still got a few left. I've got more
inbound shooting straight radio podcast at gmail.com and I'll get them right out to you.
If you just have a comment or a question, or you want to tell me I'm a jerk shooting straight radio
podcast at gmail.com. And I always respond as quickly as possible. Most of the time that's within
the hour. Sometimes I don't see them all. Forgive me in advance. If I don't answer you right away.
Reach back out to me if you would, and I sure would appreciate that. And thank you in advance for
understanding my human nature, if you know what I mean. Let's just dive right on in here and
dispense with all of the intro formalities that I usually add to each episode.
I have some rhetorical questions for all of the totalitarian wannabes out there that wish to
treasonously remove battle-capable arms from the hands of peaceable citizens.
These questions and their answers are more for the benefit of we the people than for the tyrants
that I'm addressing here. The first question is, do you actually understand the Second Amendment?
In other words, why it was written, what its purpose was, what its scope is still today,
how it applies to this nation and the maintaining.
of our liberties here? And, of course, that was a rhetorical question because the answer is no.
I don't believe they do understand it. But, to all of you totalitarians, if you do,
then your thoughts and your actions against the Second Amendment are nothing but treasonous.
Period. Plain and simple. You're trying to shift the balance of power that our founders prescribed
for this country. You're trying to weaken the people to make the government more powerful.
That is never a good prescription for liberty at all. The only reason anybody would want to disarm
you is to make you weaker than them. And the only reason they want to make you weaker than them is
because they plan on doing things to you that you might not like and you might defend yourself for.
Now, why do you totalitarians always aim these little pet gun control laws of yours strictly at the
lawful, peaceable citizens? Because yes, you do. You don't aim these at anybody else.
Don't lie. You already know that the bad people aren't following the law out there.
They never have. They never will. You know, instead of cracking down on the criminal element that
are actually out there committing all the assaults, rapes, robberies, and murders. You aim these
laws at the people that you know will comply with them, and then you can go tell all your
constituents that you did something to protect the public. You enhanced public safety by stripping
arms from people who weren't doing anything bad with them at all. The simple fact of the matter is,
and the reason that's a rhetorical question, is because we know that you all want to disarm us all,
and it's not for the public safety that you claim. Because you have no data, you have no statistics
that actually prove your side of things. You never have had them, and you never will. So why are
you all so intent on disarming us all, especially when considering that historically...
Historically speaking, disarmament has only ever been employed to make the disarmed people weaker
than the government. Is that what your intentions are? Well, again,
that's a rhetorical question, too. That is exactly what their intentions are. And to them I say,
prove to us that your intentions are actually right. Bring statistical data proving that what
you're proffering is going to be good for the public's safety at large. But you can't.
That's the problem. Why do you all purposely disregard all the evidence that proves your actions
are not only unconstitutional but also detrimental to the security of our free state and our
society in general? What gives any of you... the right to embolden and strengthen yourselves over
and against the citizenry? Do you fancy yourselves to be our rulers and not our servants?
Because you've got it backwards if that's what you think. Why do you all use men with those same
guns that you wish to take from us to impose and enforce your will upon us?
Again, that's obviously a rhetorical question because we know why you are doing it.
You want to lord it over us. You want to rule over us. More than that, all of you that are
proposing these are filthy Democrat communists and filthy Islamofascist Muslims.
And the reason you want us disarmed is because you all have plans to do hideous things to us that
you know we would rightfully be able to shoot you for. That's just the bottom line. You can deny
that all you want. Stop your lying. You can claim it's for public safety. And,
oh, gun violence is such an epidemic. And, oh, children are being slaughtered every day in our
streets by gun violence. Yeah, they're being slaughtered more in the womb than in the streets.
That's just the bottom line. You don't want to have this argument with me at all. None of you out
there that are Democrat communists want to have this argument about gun control versus abortion.
Not at all. But you have no right to rule over us. You apparently have forgotten.
But our Declaration of Independence plainly says that all men are created equal, but you start to
think that you're more equal than we are. Yeah, you're above us, or so you think.
And yes, I'm including all elected officials and all law enforcement officers out there, especially
in the blue states and cities, that think you're above us. Not to mention the fact that most of you
are unable to even govern yourselves in a moral fashion, but yet you want to rule over us.
Well, fortunately, in Virginia, unlike in the governor's mansion and the lieutenant governor's
office and the attorney general's office, there are some constitutionally minded people in
positions of public service that are planting their feet firmly and squarely on the premises of
constitutional liberty within our supreme law, and their numbers are growing daily.
Here's an article by AWR Hawkins writing for Breitbart. 12 sheriffs, 17 prosecutors who will not
enforce Virginia AR-15 ban. Now, please first let me expound on why this one state and the
challenges to its flagrantly unconstitutional assault weapons ban have nationwide ramifications.
There are 11 other states that have these kind of bans. bans on AR-15s and battle-capable
weapons. The communists in Virginia are trying to make their state the 12th.
But there's California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington State. So if Virginia's assault weapons
ban is shot down, that's going to create a massive and very pertinent legal precedent to challenge
all the others, especially if Virginia's ban is destroyed with a Bruin principle challenge,
which would definitely reinforce the Bruin principle in the lower courts, or at least we would hope
it would. Some of these courts are so corrupt and so Marxist-driven that no matter what kind of
sensibility you lay before them, they're going to rule in a political slant more than anything.
So the number of sheriffs and Commonwealth attorneys I'm reading from the article here,
who are taking a stand against the Democrats' AR-15 ban has grown so that now 12 sheriffs and 17
prosecutors have made clear they will not enforce it. Okay, this is a good start.
But keep in mind, there are 95 counties in Virginia, so there's a lot of room for improvement
still. All right? On May 25, 2026, Breitbart News reported that Spotsylvania Commonwealth Attorney
Ryan Mahaffey had made clear he would not enforce the ban. Days later,
Breitbart News pointed to a WAVY10 article which observed that the number of prosecutors refusing
to enforce the ban was continuing to grow. On May 30, 2026, Breitbart News noted that Clark County
Sheriff Travis Sumption making clear his office would not enforce the state's assault weapons ban
nor the expanded public carry restrictions. Now, Virginia Citizens Defense League,
and if you are a citizen in Virginia, you should be a member thereof, the league president,
Philip Van Cleve, has released a list showing the number of prosecutors refusing to enforce the
ban, has reached 17, and the number of sheriffs is at 12. Here are the prosecutors who are taking a
stand for Virginians' Second Amendment rights. W. Lyle Carver in Amherst County,
Leslie M. Fleet in Appomattox County, Paul McAndrews, Campbell County,
Daniel Farnsworth, Charlotte County, Matthew Bass, Clark County, Eric Branscombe in Floyd County,
John Lumpkins, Goochland County, Bethany Harrison in Lynchburg,
Chapman Good in Page County, Dana Bobbitt. That sounded very strangely like another woman in the
news a few years back. Dana Bobbitt, Patrick County.
Rob Cerullo, Poetan County. Justin Griffith, Pulaski County.
Kyle Kilgore in Scott County. Elizabeth Cooper, Shenandoah County. Phillip Blevins in Smith County.
Ryan Mahaffey in Spotsylvania County. And John Bell in Warren County.
Now, that's just the prosecutors. There's also 12 sheriffs, and I'm just going to name the
counties. That's Appomattox, Clark, Floyd, Hanover, Henry, Louisa,
Patrick, Poiton, Scott, Shenandoah, Spotsylvania, and Warren counties. The sheriffs in those
counties say flat out, we are not enforcing this ban. It is not only...
Not only does it run contrary to the Supreme Law, the United States Constitution,
this is a rank violation of Virginia's state constitution, which very closely resembles the United
States Constitution. So this ban... that the filthy communists passed also immediately on the heels
of Spanburgers and the lieutenant governors in J. Two Bullets Jones,
their sweeping election victories, which I think are still questionable.
They jumped right to getting to work for the totalitarian Marxist maggot cause and began passing
these laws in an attempt to disarm. the people of Virginia.
Now, three days earlier, there was an injunction granted. Excuse me. A judge granted an injunction.
He blocked the enforcement of Virginia's gun and magazine ban. And here's an article from Cam
Edwards from June 25th. And some of you may have already heard about this. And here is the article
by Cam. This is shaping up to be a banner day for Second Amendment advocates.
On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of Hawaii's vampire rule,
banning concealed carry by default on all private property accessible to the public.
Now, if you are wondering what the vampire rule in Hawaii was,
nickname for that 2023 anti-gun carry law in Hawaii came from comparing it to the myth of vampires
needing an invitation to enter someone's home. Now, under that illegal law, licensed concealed
carry permit holders were not allowed to legally bring a firearm into publicly accessible private
property like stores and restaurants and gas stations and the like unless of course the property
owner gave them express affirmative permission in writing or with a sign being posted or verbally
Yes, so if they didn't have permission, they couldn't enter. Now that's a throwback to the myth
surrounding vampires that they have to be invited into your home before they can come in and kill
you and drink your blood. So that's what that's talking about when Cam said they drove a stake
through the heart of their vampire rule. Back to the article. And on Thursday afternoon,
Second Amendment advocates secured an injunction that will hopefully stop Virginia's ban on assault
weapons in large capacity so-called magazines from taking effect next Wednesday.
By the way, that's tomorrow. The date of this recording is June 30th.
Courthouse news reporter Joe Dodson shared a little more info from the hearing in Lancaster County
Circuit Court. And Cam says, this is tremendous news, and I hope this injunction sticks.
You can guarantee, though, that Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones will swiftly appeal today's
verdict in hopes that the Virginia Court of Appeals or the state Supreme Court will block the
judge's order from taking effect and allow the law banning the sale, manufacture,
and transfer of commonly owned firearms to be enforced on July 1st.
The case... as Crump v. Katz, K-A-T-Z, is one of four state-level challenges to the gun and
magazine ban that argue the new law violates Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia State
Constitution, which states that a well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people
trained to arms is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.
Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that standing
armies in times of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty, and that in all cases the
military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Now, if you want to know what a standing army looks like, Just have a look at the Virginia State
Police. They're the ones that are very anxious, apparently, to start enforcing this crap.
And I want you to also consider something. What do you think is going to happen to people who defy
this law? What do you think is going to happen to them once the state police and local police find
out? They're going to marshal their forces and descend upon that person or persons or groups of
people and try to force them at gunpoint to abide by a very flagrantly unconstitutional law.
My friends, if that's not a standing army that is a bane against liberty,
I don't know what is. Yes, these people should be in subordination to the civil authorities and
powers. You see, I have a big problem with massive police forces.
In the olden days, especially in the days of the sheriffs and the marshals in the old western
towns, what those sheriffs would do, they might have one or two deputies, but when they needed
forces, they garnered them from the people. and they explained why the person they were hunting
needed to be hunted down and brought to justice. Now, it's turned into a massive,
much bigger totalitarian machine than was ever intended by our founders.
I'm not sure how many police agencies live, or I'm sorry, not live, but that were created in
Virginia, but every last one of them would gladly, as far as...
you know, as far as if they were all in the same boat, so to speak, and apparently a lot of them
are not, as we previously read, they would marshal their forces together and descend upon hapless
citizens who decided they didn't want to abide by these new unconstitutional treasonous laws.
Okay. So it said the fourth. The Federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which has jurisdiction over Virginia, has previously ruled that bans on so-called assault weapons
are constitutional for the utterly insane reason that firearms like the AR-15 are not,
according to them, protected by the Second Amendment because they are unusually dangerous arms that
are akin to machine guns. Now, y'all already know my thoughts on that. We already have every
right. to all arms of war, okay? That makes the federal challenge to Virginia's ban incredibly
difficult to succeed, at least before it gets to the Supreme Court. The Fourth Circuit has no
oversight over the Virginia Constitution, though, and its ruling in Snope v.
Brown has no bearing on the legal challenges filed in circuit courts across the state.
So, I understand the reasoning behind behind the bringing of this suit here.
A second hearing in an NRA-affiliated lawsuit is taking place in Washington County,
Virginia as well, though so far there's been no word of the outcome. The Lancaster County judge
made his ruling from the bench, and we don't have the full details about the exact reasons for
granting the injunction, but based on the criteria for doing so, he apparently believes the
plaintiffs in the case will suffer irreparable harm if the law is allowed to take effect,
and that he believes they are likely to win their case when it is fully tried and adjudicated.
Well, that's good news. Apparently, this judge decides, you guys have a very good chance of
knocking this out of the park. Plaintiff John Crump, who, by the way,
also writes for Ammo Land, provided some details of the ruling in a live stream saying that the
judge denied VCDL, or Virginia Citizens Defense League, and GOA standing in the case,
but did acknowledge that Crump himself had standing to sue over the law. So what happens now?
Well, the Attorney General, J. Two Bullets Jones, will likely, most likely,
file an emergency motion requesting a stay of the injunction. pending an appeal.
Of course he will. There's an update on this. There's actually a couple of updates. The hearing in
Washington County was concluded and the judge did not issue a ruling from the bench.
Brandon Jarvis from the Virginia Scope also pointed out a major difference between the injunction
that was issued by the Lancaster County judge and what the plaintiffs are asking for in Washington
County. If the Lancaster judge had only enjoined the Virginia State Police from enforcing the gun
and magazine ban, That means that local law enforcement in places like the blue parts of the state,
like Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, and Richmond counties can still enforce the prohibition on
sales and transfers on July 1st, even if the courts did not put the injunction on hold.
Take that into account if you're thinking about waiting until July 1st, and he's speaking to
Virginians here, to hit up a Northern Virginia gun store to buy that 30-round magazine or pistol
with a threaded barrel. By the way, let me throw this out here. To any and all law enforcement in
Virginia, And yes, I'm definitely including the utterly crooked and corrupt Virginia State Police.
You have a very clear-cut choice here. There is no gray area. You either go along with those above
you and use the power and authority given to you by the people to abuse them and abuse their
rights, especially considering the right to keep and bear arms.
I mean, these rights were purchased with blood, okay? And you guys think that they're so trivial
that you're going to go against the people who are exercising those rights that were purchased with
that blood? Really? What does that make you?
Hmm? What does that make you? The people of Virginia gave you power.
That's power they could take back anytime they want. Anytime the people felt like rising up and
smoking every one of you, they have every right to do it if you're running afoul of the
Constitution, okay? Just throwing that out there. They have the right to alter and or abolish you,
all right? So y'all do the right thing, and y'all need to join the list of,
obviously, a growing list of constitutionally-minded police officers who are refusing to enforce
that. Because if you do enforce it, you are just as much a criminal as any of the brown shirts and
the SS were back in the 1940s. There's another update. Virginia Citizens Defense League Philip Van
Cleve has more details from the Lancaster County judge. I would assume that the mag ban would also
be enjoined, but we'll see. I'm happy to see that the prohibition on carrying so-called assault
firearms is also part of the injunction. But again, if this applies only to the Virginia State
Police, then local law enforcement can still make arrests. So,
local law enforcement, do the right thing. Not the wrong thing, okay? And there's one more update
added to this. Van Cleve confirms that the magazine ban is also enjoined and that Virginia Attorney
General J. Two Bullets Jones says that he's asking for a stay and appealing the circuit court's
decision. Well, he's doing much more than that. He's already out there cheerleading all the local
law enforcement and all the other attorneys general to enforce the law in spite of the injunction
being levied against it. And there's another article by Cam Edwards. Though a Virginia judge has
granted an injunction blocking the state police from enforcing the gun and magazine ban that is set
to take effect on July 1st, a spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General J.
Two Bullets Jones says the injunction does not stop local prosecutors and police from enforcing the
law. Now, if you're wondering why I keep calling J. Two Bullets, if you remember...
there were some private texts of his that were discovered. And he basically said,
his political opponent then, who was the Virginia House Speaker,
Todd Gilbert, he said, three people, two bullets,
Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.
In other words, the other two guys don't get any bullets, but Gilbert is worthy of them. Yeah, this
man was talking about killing his political opponent. If you think that I'm being hyperbolic about
that, that comment was part of a, what should I say, a broader set of very inflammatory,
violent, where Jones also wished such harm on Gilbert's children.
Yeah, but they want to disarm us. Yeah, you follow me?
This man wants to disarm the people that he hates because if he has that hate for Gilbert,
he also has that hate for the people that voted for Gilbert. And if he would willingly assassinate
his own political rival, don't you think for a second he wouldn't do the same to the people who
voted for his political rival? Yeah. So this is the filthy communist pig that now wants all of us
to believe that he actually cares about public safety. Yeah. And that's why he's stripping the arms
from Virginia's citizens. While Jones is encouraging law enforcement to arrest anyone carrying,
selling, manufacturing, or transferring these items, Governor Abigail Spanberger responded to the
news of the injunction with a statement that raises questions of its own. And here's the question.
She posted it on X. Oh, that's actually her office did. Governor Spanberger firmly believes that
firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong in our communities near our kids and
schools or on Virginia's streets. The governor signed this common-sense legislation to save lives
and protect law enforcement officers, kids, and families from gun violence.
And the governor remains committed to making the Commonwealth a safer place for every family.
Got a question for you, you Bolshevik bimbo. If these guns are so excessively lethal,
why are your law enforcement officers permitted to keep theirs? Hmm?
Yeah, especially considering this.
There are about 50 officers shot and killed every year in America. 50.
About 120 of them annually. commit suicide with their firearms.
That tells me they're more of a danger to themselves with their firearms.
And when she says they don't belong on our streets,
that obviously means only in the hands of ordinary citizens, not the ones with badges who are
apparently a special, more privileged class and are the only ones presently carrying such weapons
on Virginia streets, okay? The only time citizens do that is when they're doing so in protest
against the proposal of certain laws like assault weapons bans. And they did that when Governor
Ralph Naotham tried to do it there too. They made a show of force and it worked.
People of Virginia, time to do that again. There's nothing wrong with you making a show of force
because that's exactly what these people are doing to you. They're making a show of force.
They're threatening you with prosecution. They're threatening you with prison sentences. They're
threatening you with confiscation of your arms without due process.
And so you have every right to show force back. That's only the right thing to do.
We'll take a brief commercial timeout, and then we're going to look at the Wolford decision and how
it... is soon to be used, I believe, to attack New Jersey's assault weapons ban.
So stick around. We've got a lot 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. 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.
If you'll remember, in the first part, I referenced the vampire rule that was shot down in the
Wolford decision in a recent case that... disrupted the totalitarian impulses of the government of
Hawaii. And we're going to be addressing that again now. But I want to first point out the wisdom
of our founders in establishing the innocent until proven guilty standard.
Innocent until proven guilty. Apparently, when men wax tyrannical,
They love to say you're guilty until you prove to me you're innocent. And unless you prove to me
that you're innocent, I declare you guilty. Now, that is totally antithetical to liberty,
of course. And that's why I have a problem with a lot of the way that...
-day law enforcement interacts with the citizenry. They approach them with this, well, unless you
can satisfy my suspicions, no matter how ignorant they may be, I am going to declare that you are
guilty of whatever I decide you're guilty of. That's not the way it's supposed to work,
all right? We are innocent until proven guilty, but that's not the way tyrants like to operate.
Here's an article by Duncan Johnson writing for Ammo Land. Supreme Court's Wolford decision could
blow a hole in New Jersey's AR-15 ban defense. Now listen to the reasoning in this.
It is phenomenal. The Supreme Court's decision in Wolford v.
Lopez was about Hawaii's attempt to turn most private property open to the public into gun-free
zones by default. But the ruling may have just handed gun owners in New Jersey a powerful new
weapon in the fight against the state's ban on so-called assault firearms. Well,
not just New Jersey's. There's 10 other states with the same bans right now, and Virginia's trying
to be the 12th. And this could open the door to freedom and the balance of power being restored in
all these states. Just think about this. If they take the principles applied in this Wolford
decision and attack these illegal laws, they have a very good chance if the case is put in front of
a reasonable, constitutionally-minded judge, that is. On June 26,
attorneys for the Cheeseman... in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v.
Attorney General notified the Third Circuit that Walford directly affects the pending challenge to
New Jersey's semi-automatic firearm ban. The point is simple. New Jersey cannot force gun owners
to prove at the starting line that banned firearms are, quote,
in common use. before the Second Amendment even applies. Did you catch that?
That's how we're approached. That's their reasoning. You proved to us that you have a right to
this. You proved to us that you have a right to these guns.
No, it's already been proven. It's in our supreme law. It's established therein.
It's easy to read. It's an amendment too. Have a look. A well-regulated militia being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So, under Walford, the first question is much more basic.
Does the law regulate arms? If yes, then the Constitution is already in play.
Bingo, bango, bongo, baby. I love that. That is real common sense right there.
So Walford reaffirms essentially the plain text doctrine of the Bruin decision.
We continue. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court in Walford,
explained that Bruin's first step asked whether the law falls within the Second Amendment's plain
text. That includes whether the law concerns arms, meaning weapons, customarily used for offensive
or defensive purposes, according to the court. Phrasing matters. Yes,
I would also add to that, customarily used by our military,
because we the people have the right to those arms, too. The Second Amendment does not protect only
whatever gun a state lawyer is willing to admit is useful for home defense.
And you caught that, right? Yeah. Why do we have to prove to them what guns are useful for home
defense or personal defense when these people, most of the ones crafting and enforcing the laws,
don't know crap about it? Yeah. It does not only protect handguns.
It does not protect only muskets. It protects arms. And Wolford confirms that the category includes
weapons customarily used for defensive and or offensive purposes.
And that is a problem for New Jersey. I want to know when all my fellow Second Amendment advocates
are going to start recognizing, proclaiming, and even demanding the original text definition of the
word arms. How about we start there? I mean, you look it up in the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary,
it clearly means all arms suitable for warfare. Back to the article. That matters in Cheeseman
because New Jersey's ban plainly regulates firearms,
not accessories, not conduct divorced from arms. Firearms.
The Cheeseman letter seizes on that language, telling the Third Circuit that the only predicate
question is whether the law concerns arms. Oh, this is brilliant, people. This is absolutely
brilliant. The plaintiffs argue that the answer is... beyond dispute,
meaning the Second Amendment presumptively protects possession of the banned firearms.
From there, the burden shifts to New Jersey. I love this. This is good stuff.
I'm tired of being put on the defensive with, well, you don't need that. That's not suitable for
you to defend yourself. You need to explain to me why that's suitable. No, I don't have to explain
crap to you. It's codified within our supreme law that I have the right to keep and bear arms for
war, so shut your pie hole. The article continues. That is the part anti-gun states hate.
They want gun hunters trapped in a never-ending preliminary debate over whether AR-15s,
modern semi-automatic rifles, and similar arms are common enough, useful enough,
or favored enough by judges to count. Walford. makes that harder.
Yes. You know, this kind of encompasses all the arguments against the free exercise of our right to
keep and bear arms. If you think about it, I've been asked so many times, why do you need a gun?
I've had people look at me, look at you. You're a pretty strong fit guy. You're a large dude.
Why do you need a gun? Well, because bad people carry guns. But more than that,
how about you explain to me why I don't need one? How about you start there? Go ahead. Explain to
me why I do not need a gun. And don't tell me because of my size and strength and ability to defend
myself. Explain to me why I don't need a gun. Because I'm going to ask you, do violent criminals
exist? Do they carry guns? Do they get guns freely? Yes,
and I mean without even going through a background check. Mm-hmm. Okay. then there's the answer to
your question. Does government tyranny exist? Well,
absolutely. Our own country is polluted with it in its history. Are there any historical examples
of the government waxing violent against the citizenry? Well, for a few contemporary examples,
Brian Malinowski, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and so on and so forth. As I've said,
our history... saturated with incidents of government abusing the citizenry.
So New Jersey has this common use argument, which is, again,
one of the fallacies created by the Heller decision. And it's also the dangerous and unusual
fallacy that's being bandied about in all the lower circuit courts. So New Jersey has argued that
common use belongs at the threshold of the case. No, it doesn't. Why? Why does it belong there?
They're in common use by our police and military. Then we have the right to those same arms.
Try to prove to me that that's not true. The open challenge to anybody and everybody out there.
Back to the article. In other words. The state wants the courts to ask whether the banned arms are
common before deciding whether the Second Amendment applies. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
I like that. You don't get to tell me that the Second Amendment does not apply if this decision in
this case is about firearms. The Cheeseman plaintiffs say Walford rejects that exact move.
Quoting Walford, The letter notes that such considerations are out of place at Bruins' first step.
At that stage, the court said the question is whether the law falls within the Second Amendment's
plain text. That's the real question right there, and that distinction is absolutely critical.
That's the question. Does this law that you guys are proposing—don't tell me your guns aren't
covered by the—no, just shut up. Does your law that you're proposing—
that you want to enforce upon us, does that fall within the Second Amendment's plain text?
Show me anywhere in the plain text of the Second Amendment that the government has any right,
any government within the confines of the continental USA and beyond whatever U.S.
territories, do they have the right to infringe our rights?
to keep and bear arms. That's the real question to be asked here, not whether a certain gun falls
under the protection of it, okay? Common use still matters.
I vehemently disagree, but not the way New Jersey wants it to matter.
Under Heller and Bruin, the government may try to defend a ban by proving the arms are,
quote-unquote, dangerous and unusual. Okay, you know my thoughts on that. Weapons.
are called weapons because they are supposed to be dangerous. Yes, that's what makes them a weapon.
If it's something that can be used to injure another party, whether defensively or offensively,
it's a freaking weapon, okay? The article continues, but that's the government's burden, which they
can only argue in generalities and hyperbole, by the way, and not with demonstrable facts. It is
not supposed to be a precondition gun owners must satisfy before their rights are recognized.
Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. New Jersey does not get to say,
Prove your guns are protected before we have to justify banning them,
Wolford says. The plain text comes first. Amen, amen,
and amen. This bodes badly. For all the totalitarians out there and all the states that have
assault weapons bans therein,
Walford has reignited and rejuvenated the Bruin principles.
Amy Coney Barrett made a concurrence on this, and the article says Justice Amy Coney Barrett's
concurrence is also important for Cheeseman. She warned. against letting governments smuggle
additional limits into the plain text stage of Second Amendment analysis. Amen to that,
too. So many people have said the Second Amendment allows for gun control laws to be written and
enforced. Okay, prove it to me in the plain text, okay? That is exactly what New Jersey appears to
be trying to do. If a state can redefine Bruins' Step 1 by importing parts of the historical
analysis into the threshold question, then the government can water down the Second Amendment
before the real test even begins. That gives the Cheeseman plaintiffs a clean response.
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Once a man targets and
restricts possession, the state has to justify the restriction through history and tradition.
Judge Jackson, who cannot be trusted any more than John Roberts, you're welcome, she made something
a very interesting note here. It said the Cheeseman letter also points to Justice Ketanji Brown
Jackson's dissent. Jackson disagreed with the majority's application of Bruin,
but she described the majority's rule as requiring courts to look only to the Second Amendment's
plain text at step one. So even she, in her dissent, basically agreed with this.
That matters because even the dissent understood what the majority had done. Wolford separates the
plaintext inquiry from the historical analog inquiry. The plaintiffs in Cheeseman are now telling
the Third Circuit to apply that separation to New Jersey's rifle ban.
Could this lead to the end of assault weapons bans across the nation? Absolutely. It absolutely
could. We continue. Wolford was not an assault weapon case,
and it did not directly decide whether bans on AR-15s are unconstitutional.
But Supreme Court decisions often reshape pending cases by clarifying the text lower courts must
use. Here, the clarification is bad news for New Jersey.
Modern semi-automatic rifles are unquestionably arms. They are weapons.
They are owned by millions of Americans. They are used for lawful purposes, including self
-defense, training, competition, and home protection. Under the Wolford design,
that should be enough to trigger Second Amendment protection at the plain text stage.
New Jersey must prove its ban fits the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation,
and it doesn't. That is where these bans have always been weakest. There is no founding-era
tradition of banning an entire class of commonly-owned firearms because politicians simply dislike
their appearance, their features, or their popularity. The Third Circuit now has fresh Supreme
Court guidance sitting directly in front of it. For New Jersey gun owners, Walford may not be the
final shot in Cheeseman, but it may have just made the state's job a whole lot harder.
And good. The state's job should be made as difficult as possible.
People exercising and standing up for our rights is absolutely a necessary component of maintaining
our liberty here in this country. Bottom line. This might be misconstrued as being anti-cop,
what I'm about to say, okay? It isn't. What it is is anti this principle that seems to permeate law
enforcement these days.
If someone tries to defend their rights, of course, politely, yes,
and not disrespectfully, with a police officer on the side of the road, and he says,
why are you being difficult? My response would absolutely be, since when is me defending my rights
being difficult? You, sir or ma'am, swore an oath to uphold and defend my rights,
but here you are assaulting them and demanding that I give you permission to search my vehicle
without a warrant for whatever reason. Yeah, I'm not going to do it.
I'm not going to freely relinquish rights that were purchased for me with the lives and life and
limbs and blood of so many of my fellow Americans. To me,
the cost is the problem. You don't get to tell me that these things that were purchased with blood
should be viewed so cheaply. that I simply hand it to you and allow you to run roughshod over my
rights. If that's being difficult to you, you poor little thing, I'm sorry you got your feelings
hurt. I'm allowed to disagree with or defend verbally my rights on the side of the road with a
police officer who might want me to relinquish my rights, which I never will do.
This also goes for the tyrants in high places. They're the ones that like to say,
well, what do you need with that? I don't have to justify my need of anything. Why do I need to
speak freely? Why do I need to go to church? Just because you don't like the fact that I keep and
bear arms and arms that you don't like or go to a church you don't like doesn't give you the right
to regulate my conduct through government fiat. It doesn't happen that way.
Yes, I will flex my rights on any tyrant, regardless of who they are,
where they are, at any time. That's something that I simply just do, and if you don't believe me,
you ask anybody. I deal with police officers on a daily basis, and the majority of them are fine,
upstanding American people. Then again, there's some of them that I have literally taken to task in
the shop where I work. and ask them flat out, where do you get off talking and thinking like that?
Because some of them are just absolutely abusive little tyrants who think that our rights are just
an impediment to their enforcement. That's not the case at all. If our rights are impeding your
actions, sir or ma'am, with the badge on, you are on the wrong side of things and not...
Me. You realign yourself with the Constitution, and I'm sure we'll get along just fine.
That goes also for legislators and governors, and yes, presidents too.
Our rights were purchased with blood. We're not going to relinquish them just because somebody
doesn't like the fact that we want to exercise them with weapons they don't like or they're afraid
of, because that's really what it is. They're afraid of us owning these guns because they intend to
do evil things to us and they know we have a say as long as we are armed.
So you stay armed, you stay strapped, or you get clapped, stay in contact with your reps,
stock up on beans, bullets, and bandages, and never forget, incoming rounds always have the right
of way. Royce out.