The War Between Two Parallel Judicial Systems

Two recent slap-downs of "assault weapons" bans, one in Virginia via court injunction against their enforcement thereof and one in New Jersey that was nullified outright by a 3rd Circuit Court decision.

Compare that to two other courts that recently upheld such Constitutionally illiterate bans in Massachusetts and Illinois, and you'll understand why Royce declares there are two parallel judicial systems at work in this country; one upholds and defends the Constitution while the other assaults it at every turn, conveniently ignoring the text of the 2nd Amendment as well as the Bruen standards set forth by the Supreme Court.

Freedom Guns
Firearms, Ammunition, Accessories, Training classes

Bill Mick Live!
Tune in every weekday morning from 06:00-09:00 EST for some common sense, uncommon radio!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glover Orndorf and Flanagan Wealth Mgmt.
Wealth management services

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

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

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

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Life has a way of throwing unforeseen events and new opportunities our way. At Glover, Orndorff &
Flanagan Wealth Management, they are dedicated to putting your interests first with a truly
personalized approach. They are there to bring confidence to your investment planning choices.
Whether you need income production for retirement, 401k guidance, long-term investments, or other
financial planning needs, they'll focus on the establishment of a plan tailored to your life's
priorities. For more information, call Bill Orndorff, partner with Glover, Orndorff & Flanagan
Wealth. Management today at 321-344-1202. 321-344-1202.
Investment products and services are offered through Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC.
Member SIPC, Glover, Orndorff, and Flanagan, LLC is a separate entity from Wells Fargo Advisors
Financial Network.
WJS Guns in North Merritt Island is where you need to go for your firearms,
ammunition, accessories, holsters, body armor. fishing tackle, and much more.
WJS Guns also offers blue label pricing for law enforcement officers on multiple firearms brands.
And above all, WJS Guns offers friendly, exceptional service to everyone,
especially to us ladies and first-time gun buyers. For more information, check them out at wjsguns
.com. And always tell them Roy sent you.
That's right. You heard the man. He said, let's go. We are locked, loaded, and loud on the Shooting
Straight radio podcast. This is all about firearms with a heavy, heavy emphasis on the Second
Amendment and all things pertaining thereto. I am Royce. You're 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.
Hops number nine. Absolutely. And as usual, we've got a lot to talk about today.
You can reach out to me at shootingstraightradiopodcast at gmail.com or shootingstraightradioshow
at gmail.com. And I usually get right back to you. If I miss your email or something,
please reach out again. I don't ignore any emails, even one that I might dread reading from some of
the critics that tried to reach out to this. program. I read them all and I try to respond to each
and every one of them. If I miss you, please forgive me in advance. All right. I really appreciate
that. All right. We've got a major war going on in our judicial systems.
When I say systems, plural, it's because we have two parallel judicial systems in this country.
We really do. We've got some circuit courts, some circuit courts of appeals. that are stacked
heavily with Marxists, and they rule according to their ideology.
They disregard the Constitution. They disregard Supreme Court precedents.
They disregard everything in favor of attempting to disarm the United States people,
the people of the United States. That's their goal, and they will always use their judicial power
to that aim. That's what they do. The First Circuit Court of Appeal, we're going to look at them
today. We already had the third circuit, getting my tang tumbled,
the Third Circuit slapped down New Jersey's assault weapons ban.
We talked about that in the last program, I believe. And what's funny is there have been other
courts since. that have upheld such bans in other states.
So how is it that we have one court that will say,
no, that's not constitutional, and then you have these other courts, like the First Circuit,
that will come along and they don't rely on the text and history standards set forth in the Bruin
decision. They rely on their ideology. and they rely on precedents that they can find or scrounge
up somewhere in our historical analog and use them rather than focusing on what they're supposed to
focus on, and that's the actual text of the Constitution and the history surrounding it.
So we do have this war going on between two parallel justice systems in this country,
and that's making for some, well, Let's put it this way.
The Marxists have their court systems, and us Americans have our court system.
It shouldn't be that way. To me, that's more proof that we're heavily divided,
not just on the societal level, but also in our government levels.
Let's start with Virginia, because we know there are two injunctions now levied against Two Bullets
Jones out there, and he at first tried to get...
the local police departments to continue to just ignore the injunction and to keep enforcing this
assault weapons ban. However, there was a clarification issued, and the clarification from the
judge, from the court, said basically, no, you are not going to enforce this at all. And I'm going
to be referencing heavily an article by John Crump. from Ammo Land. That's a publication I think
you should definitely follow online. They got some great stuff there, and John Crump is a bulldog,
man. I'm telling you what, he gets involved with this stuff. He will actually file lawsuits
himself, which is what he did in conjunction with the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun
Owners of America. And he... He gets out there and gets in the trenches,
man. I'm telling you what, this guy impresses me more and more every time I read about him and read
some of the stuff that he puts out here for Ammo Land. But since there are two statewide
injunctions against this Virginia assault weapons ban and magazine ban,
those injunctions now have paved the way for...
like Palmetto State Armory, often referred to as PSA, and other such companies,
they have resumed shipping those items to people in Virginia again.
They've been shipping assault weapons to retailers, and they've been shipping high-capacity
magazines or large-capacity magazines, whatever they're calling them this week.
And they have resumed shipments there, so my admonition to the good people of Virginia is buy the
living crap out of them. Take some money out of your savings and buy lots of magazines and lots of
ammo because that is what those people need to see. They need to see a massive increase of
armaments amongst the citizenry there and to help keep them in check. keep their ambitions in
check, keep their design for totalitarianism over the people in check.
So there was one injunction brought by, matter of fact, that was from a lawsuit that Mr.
Crump brought there and then the Crump versus Katz lawsuit. And then there was another one brought
by the NRA and Santola versus Katz. which took effect on July 21st,
which is the date of this recording is seven days ago. And I'm going to read a little bit of this
article by John Crump. It says, in Santola versus Katz, the presiding judge was compelled to issue
an updated clarification after Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones appeared to suggest that the law
could still be enforced in certain circumstances. Boy, they don't like losing power, do they?
Initially, Jones petitioned the Supreme Court of Virginia for a stay of both injunctions.
However, that strategy shifted dramatically following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to grant
cert in two pivotal cases, one of them, Viramontes v. Cook County,
and that's Chicago, and the other one is Grant v. Higgins, and that's contesting Connecticut's
assault weapons ban, of course.
So now he's noticing that the Supreme Court has something to say about it. And I think he's
starting to read the tea leaves. I think he's kind of realizing that there is a decisively pro
-Second Amendment momentum building against him. This is why I say stay in contact with your reps
all the time. The louder we are, the more they know how we feel. And I don't mean be rude or
threatening, anything like that, but you tell them firmly and in no uncertain terms, you will not
disarm us. And if you force us to defend our rights in our streets, that's something we're willing
to do. Say it like that. I have no problem telling any of these people that.
Matter of fact, like I said, they tried to put an assault weapon ban on a ballot referendum here in
the state of Florida. Oh, goodness, how long ago? I don't remember now. But I crafted a resolution
of noncompliance, which was adopted by the Florida Republican Liberty Caucus and was actually hand
-delivered to the members of the Florida House and the Florida legislature up in Tallahassee.
And basically it said, I'll sum it up for you. Go ahead and write this law if you want,
or go ahead and put this on the ballot. Go ahead and make it a matter of law or the state
constitution. We're not going to comply. And we have the right to resist any enforcement of these
things. That's how you get their attention. You tell them flat out, we hope this doesn't happen,
but if it does, we're willing to pursue it to the end, if you know what I mean. So Jones has kind
of recognized that momentum building against him, and so now he's advocating for allowing the
injunctions to stay in place.
And the article says he now advocates allowing the injunctions to remain while seeking to pause the
underlying Virginia cases until the Supreme Court rules in the consolidated federal matters.
Plaintiffs across all related lawsuits have strongly opposed any further delays.
arguing that Virginians should not have their constitutional rights held in limbo. I'll go further
than that and say that Virginians should not have their constitutional rights held in contempt by
evil domestic enemy pieces of garbage like Jay Jones and their governor and the lieutenant governor
there in Virginia. They have absolute contempt for the people. They have contempt for the
Constitution. They wipe their posterior ends with it, and they have no business being in office in
the first place. I got a funny feeling that there was a lot of fraud involved in their ascension to
those offices, but that's for another program, maybe. But anyway. But gun owners can now buy these
things in Virginia again. You can buy your large capacity magazines, buy them direct from Palmetto
State Armory, buy them from wherever you want to get them, but buy a lot of them because you might
need to sell a couple to your neighbor and they might need some too because maybe they were the
grasshopper and not the ant, if you remember that fable. And you might need to help outfit them.
Go ahead and start stocking up on a lot more ammo, too, while you're at it. Just to make sure.
You make sure the citizen militia is well-funded, well-stocked,
and well-regulated. Matter of fact, a lot of the local retailers there,
the brick-and-mortar stores, they've started selling those items again, too.
They've been relying on that injunction that was issued against the state and the Virginia State
Police, and they never halted sales in the first place, some of them. So I like what I'm seeing
there going on there in Virginia. Now let's downshift to New Jersey,
because on July 31st, the New Jersey State Police will officially cease.
the enforcement of that state's prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 or what they
call assault weapons, as if that's their only thing they're good for is assaulting, and the
standard capacity magazines of 30 rounds or more. I don't care. They have no right to tell us the
capacity of our magazines and what we need and what we don't need to defend ourselves against them,
because that's really what that boils down to.
They're going to cease on July 31st. And the framework of Bruin is what helped shoot that New
Jersey assault weapons magazine crap, assault weapons and high capacity magazine crap down.
And the court, using the Bruin principles, essentially told the state of New Jersey,
you have no standing. to do this you have no rightful standing you don't have your your case and
your law lacks any historical analogs it like it lacks any constitutional backing and it lacks any
um of the text and history of the second amendment much less the 14th amendment so they're going to
the new jersey people are finally going to be able to grab hold of a good old AR-15 again,
and I suggest all of you do that immediately following July 31st.
Now, I want you to realize something. They've been stripped of these arms for almost 40 years,
36 to be exact, because their ban was passed back in 1990, coincidentally the same year that the
Gun-Free Zones Act was passed in Congress, the Federal Congress,
that is. In my opinion, every legislator, whether in the state of Virginia or New Jersey or
anywhere, I don't care. Any public official that voted for any such assault weapons ban and any law
enforcement official that enforced it, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm being nice here,
believe me, they need to be imprisoned for life at hard labor. Yep,
I said that. They need to be imprisoned for life at hard labor to set an example to show all the
others who are aspiring to office, all the communists who are trying to get into office,
all of the filthy Muslims who have recently ascended office all over this country,
they need to understand there are penalties for attacking the supreme law. They took an oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution and then promptly set about to violate that oath. As far as I'm
concerned, you belong in prison for life. Frankly, I think there should be a multi-occupant
gallows built in every state in the Capitol, and that thing should be put to work maybe 24-7 for a
few months until we clean this country up. But I say that with charity, of course.
Royce, that's pretty harsh. Well, think about the severity of their crimes here. That is a direct
assault against the security of this nation. When you disarm the people,
the founders expressly stated that the people must always be armed in order to fend off a
totalitarian government, much like the government of Virginia right now and the government of
Illinois and the government of California. They weren't just talking about the federal government.
They were talking about government at any level. And we have the right to defend ourselves against
them. Online retailers are expected to announce very soon that they're going to be resuming sales
and shipping to New Jersey very shortly, now that they've got a clear timeline to work with,
so to speak. But is that timeline really clear to, let's say,
the people it was issued against? That these injunction that who had their law slapped down because
the Senate president, one Nicholas P. Scutari, who is a filthy Democrat communist out of Union and
Somerset area there in Trenton. I think it's Trenton. Don't quote me on that. I've never been to
New Jersey. Excuse me. He made some really asinine statements in response to.
that law being slapped down there and slapping down the restrictions on owning assault weapons and
high capacity magazines. And I'm going to have a little fun with his comments here.
If you'll just indulge me momentarily, he said the third circuit court's decision to overturn New
Jersey's effective. Nation-leading ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines is
misguided. What do you mean it was effective? Effective at what? Nation-leading?
How did you lead the nation? Yeah. What makes you such a nation-leader by disarming the people of
your state? He said it's a calculated attack on public safety and common-sense firearms
restriction. Wrong, jackass. Your passing of those now nullified laws was a direct treasonous
attack on the security of the free state and public safety as well, because the public is not safe
unless they are safe also from their government. Not just the street-level thugs.
The thugs in high places, too, with the suits and ties, with ink and pen,
or these days, laptops.
willy-nilly write laws that strip the people of their state of their rights. He said,
over decades, New Jersey has meticulously balanced constitutional rights with the fundamental right
of every person to live safely and freely. No, you have not. Rights cannot be balanced,
jackass. They can't be balanced with direct, willful, seditious infringements.
You don't balance the free exercise of a right by infringing it. My goodness, son,
where did you go to school? Yeah, probably one of them liberal arts colleges. Whatever. He says,
enacting gun safety regulations that have helped us achieve one of the lowest gun death rates in
the nation. Prove it. Show your work. Show cause and effect. Anybody can make asinine statements
like that, but let me see you prove it. How about that? He said, going back on this progress.
Progress? That's funny. That's what termites call what they do. Going back on this progress will
only endanger our communities and perpetuate the gun violence epidemic we have worked tirelessly to
address. Really? You want to bet money on that? Because all you counterwalling communists always
say the same thing whenever liberty has been restored to the people. You come out weeping and
wailing and gnashing your teeth and wringing your hands and clutching your little Timu pearls, and
you start prognosticating and predicting blood in the streets flowing up to the horse's bridle.
Yeah, that's a biblical reference there. Yeah, that's what you guys talk about. You just think, oh
my goodness, if the people may freely exercise their rights, there's going to be violence. No,
I think he's more worried about the violence against the government that they fear justifiably for
the things that they want to do to the people. Any reasonable person understands that weapons of
war have no place in a civil society. That's not what the founders said. That's not even remotely
what the founders said. They said quite the opposite. They said that every man be armed.
That will provide for the peace and the tranquility of this nation. I'm paraphrasing now.
Tinch Cox said that the sword and every terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of an
American citizen. And funny, back in those days, they walked around with a pistol or two tucked in
their belt and a saber on their side, not to mention maybe a tomahawk too.
So, oh, any reasonable person understands. No, you're not reasonable,
though. It's not reasonable to want to disarm the entirety of your populace and set yourself up as
the ruling class and then have an enforcement class to keep people from defending their own selves
with firearms. Again, not just against the street-level thugs, against the ones with the suits and
ties also.
Yeah, weapons of war certainly do have a place in civil society, sir. That's what helps keep it
civil. He said that is why every other circuit court... This issue has upheld the law on its
merits. Yeah, but not on the merits of the Constitution. No child deserves to be gunned down in a
classroom. And no child deserves to be required by law to be a defenseless victim in waiting so
they can be gunned down in a classroom. No grandparents should be targeted while shopping for
groceries. So you're saying citizens owning these weapons?
are now going to be targeting grandma and grandpa at the grocery store? Do you understand what a
braying jackass you sound like? There's no sense in what you're saying, sir. He said that no first
responder should have to witness the devastation these weapons inflict on innocent people.
Moron. They witness far worse than gunshot wounds.
Really. I know that I have. When I used to work for a company that contracted to the medical
examiner's office to go on scene and pick up mangled bodies from train wrecks,
car wrecks, and plane crashes and things like that, not to mention one guy that got electrocuted in
a live FPL yard, or one dude that actually had the misfortune of tripping in front of a big,
heavy, what they call a steamroller, and literally was just flattened out.
Yeah, I've seen far worse things than gunshot wounds. Matter of fact, a lot of knife wounds are far
more hideous to look at than a gunshot wound. So I'm glad you are so distraught over the mental
well-being of the first responders. But that's what they signed up for, sir. And they've seen far
worse than that. He continued, protecting our communities should always take precedence over
expanding. access to weapons designed for mass killing. First of all,
they weren't designed for mass killing. They were designed originally as a civilian weapon that was
later adopted by the military. And by the way, you can't protect your communities,
you retard. You have to let communities protect themselves. In every state where there's a
protector class, allegedly, protecting the people violent crime goes off the rails goes off the
charts look at new york city for instance so it wasn't the ar-15 was not designed for mass murder
yeah eugene stoner did not design that you know you know what i'm gonna design i'm gonna design a
gun that's perfect for mass murder no I think what he's really whining about is the balance of
power shifting once again in favor of the citizenry, just as the founders envisioned,
and he feels his power threatened. These people don't like when us lowly peon citizens have the
ability, not just the right, to say, no, you're not doing that.
Because like spoiled little children, they don't like being told no. He said with...
overwhelming public support. You didn't have any such thing. We will continue to fight injudicious
decisions like this to ensure that New Jersey continues to safeguard every resident and serves as a
national model for effective firearm safety laws. Well, there's no such thing as a firearm safety
law that is effective in stopping violent crime, moron. And you don't have any such thing as
overwhelming public support. And why is it that you wrong? assume that peaceable citizens owning
guns that you fear is somehow going to negatively impact public safety too.
Not to mention the fact that it's your primary duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, and
that's the only way to even attempt to quote-unquote safeguard every resident,
which you presently suck at doing. You can't safeguard every resident,
sir. If you could, there would be absolutely no violent crime in your state at all, in which case I
would give you a giant shooting straight mea culpa and close my program up tomorrow. But you can't
do that.
So now the New Jersey Attorney General. is backtracking on the effective date of the gun and
magazine man's demise, according to an article by John Petrolino. And the spokesman for New Jersey
Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said that the Third Circuit's decision is effective July 31,
2026. They continued by noting that the attorney general is,
quote, working on guidance to inform both the law enforcement community and the public about the
effect of the decision. The public is already aware of the effect of the decision. You need to
straighten out all the law enforcement officials in your state now. That's what you need to do. And
you need to tell them, back off of the people. They have the right to own every gun that you own.
Any weapon used by law enforcement or even the military for that matter, we the people have a right
to own it. That's the best thing that you could possibly do. That's really what it boils down to.
Now, sadly, there's a few other laws still in place,
but they're being challenged. Bans on hollow point ammunition, bans on suppressors,
bans on short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles and other things like that.
Let me just say this about hollow points. Hollow points were designed for safety.
Ooh, I bet they didn't know that. Hollow points were designed to mitigate overpenetration.
Because there were too many instances of law enforcement officials shooting people with solid lead
cast bullets going completely through them and hitting innocent people. So that was what led.
to the design of a hollow point bullet that it would open up, have a wider impact surface once it
gets inside to help slow it down. Yes. Against tissue. I understand that.
And yes, I understand it creates a more horrific wounds, but the point of shooting anybody in the
first place is to wound them. Yes. If you really have to shoot somebody, you want the bullet to do
the job, hopefully with one round, which is. Very rare,
unless you're a really good shot. And that was the purpose of the hollow point being designed in
the first place. So what's really stupid is down here in my home state of Florida,
and I don't know if they changed it, but armed security guards may not carry hollow point ammo.
And I was flabbergasted at that. And I'm like, why? That makes no sense at all.
Do you want pass-throughs when people have to use their guns and shoot a perpetrator or possibly
wound an innocent party? Yeah, we're not dealing with rocket scientists here,
and we certainly are not dealing with constitutional scholars. So we're going to take a brief
commercial timeout, and when we come back, we're going to take a look at a couple of... Decisions
by the parallel justice system in this country, that is the Marxist justice system.
We're going to look at a ruling by the first court in regard to Massachusetts assault weapons ban.
And then we're going to take a look at, let me scroll. Down here, Illinois, yeah And their assault
weapons ban And how the 7th Circuit Basically upheld their Assault weapons ban And large capacity
magazine ban We'll talk about that when we come back Be right back with more Shooting Straight Hey
guys, let me tell you what Counter-Strike Tactical is the absolute best Little gun store in
Melbourne And proud sponsors of the Shooting Straight radio podcast Come visit us at 1008
Strawbridge Avenue and see the custom AR builds by Anthony Vallejo, owner and combat veteran.
Plus, AK-47s, handguns, ammo, tactical rifle accessories, and much more.
So stop in and see us, 1008 Strawbridge Avenue, and visit the best little gun store in Melbourne.
Or give us a call, 321-499-4949. Tell Anthony that Roy sent you.
We can't wait to see you. As many of you know, I, your host, am a firearms instructor,
and I run all of my firearms training business through shootingclasses.com because it simply
doesn't make sense to try to do it all myself. With automated roster creation, when students sign
up, Payment processing and automated emailing to your students, reminding them of the class date
and time. It simply doesn't make sense to try to do all of that by yourself.
Get signed up with shootingclasses.com today and take a big load off yourself. Shootingclasses
.com.
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 have been discussing the
war going on between our two parallel justice systems here, or should I say judicial systems,
because one of the systems doesn't care about justice.
They only care about using their position to advance the Marxist cause here in the United States.
And that cause is to overthrow this nation, which means those judges are enemy actors as far as I'm
concerned, but we're not going to go too deep in those weeds right now. Not in this program.
But we looked at the slapdown of the New Jersey assault weapons ban,
and then we looked at the stay. of the injunction against Virginia's assault weapons bans and how
Jay Jones is just chopping at the bit to get that back in place.
But now we're going to look at a ruling by the First Circuit.
And it's easy to tell. which judicial system they're part of.
And it certainly isn't the one that relies on constitutional propriety. And I'm going to be
referencing an article by Brian Dowling, who was a Boston correspondent. And the article is
Massachusetts AR ban, AR 15 ban unanimously, unanimously upheld by first circuit.
You know what that tells me? That tells me that every single justice.
on that First Circuit is nothing but an activist Marxist,
as far as I'm concerned. I really believe that this ruling by the First Circuit was a giant middle
finger to the Third Circuit decision against New Jersey recently, not to mention a giant middle
finger against the three gun stores. in Massachusetts that told them,
originally told the First Circuit that they got it wrong the first time. And this exemplifies what
I've said. This exemplifies what I'm saying. We have two parallel judicial systems,
one run by constitutionalists, one run by communists. And the First Circuit is obviously in the
communist system. Excuse me. Here's the article by Mr.
Brian Dowling. A federal appeals court refused to strike down Massachusetts' ban on weapons like
the AR-15 in a challenge invoking the best-selling rifle's purported self-defense value to
citizens battling tyrannical government forces. The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel,
every one of them a flaming communist, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on
Tuesday. That was last Tuesday. Let's see, what was the date of this article? July 21st.
So, yes. Excuse me.
They refused to revive three gun stores challenges.
to the deep blue New England states ban on so-called assault weapons.
And of course, that includes the AR-15 and et al. The ruling resting on the First Circuit's
existing precedent. How do you like that? Yeah, this court made one ruling and then they said,
we're going to rely on our old ruling. They didn't bother deviating. They didn't bother actually
applying a Bruin standard. We're going to go with what we said last time. That's basically what
they're saying.
The ruling is a win for states seeking to maintain restrictions on certain firepower following the
Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, and that's the Bruin ruling they're talking about, New York State
Rifle and Pistol Association Incorporated v. Bruin, which created a framework that analyzed
firearms law through the eyes of the nation's founders, which is exactly what they should have
done. Well, of course, they did not, or they wouldn't have come to this ruling.
So they basically, what I mean by that, they basically ignored it. They basically flipped their
middle finger at the Supreme Court too, if you really want to think about that.
Tuesday's opinion comes three weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear challenges to the
similar bans in Connecticut and in Cook County, Illinois next term. Well, good.
I hope that none of these false precedents, these unconstitutional precedents,
have any influence and sway over the Supreme Court justices, but again, I've said before,
I don't trust any of them anymore except for Scalia and Thomas.
The Massachusetts retailers said the First Circuit's previous ruling on the ban failed to consider
that the nation's founders would have valued firepower necessary to repel despotic armed forces,
meaning state armed forces or federal armed forces. But the court said that that argument failed to
overcome the state's position that the M16-inspired civilian rifles are more often than not used
for offensive combat. You relied on the state's position there,
and that's the state's position. Did you bother even doing any homework about what they were saying
and verifying that it was true? The M16 did not inspire the AR-15.
Actually, the AR-10. was built first. It was chambered in 7.62x51,
and a lot of them in the AR-10 platform today still chambered in that. A lot of them very popular
in the 6.5 Creedmoor. Excuse me. Boy, the pollen's really nice out today.
But the M16 did not inspire the AR-15. The AR-15 was the precursor to the M16.
And the AR-10 was a precursor to all of them. So that right there is an erroneous position that I
just disproved in mere seconds. How come the court couldn't do their homework on this?
And they say they're more often than not used for offensive combat. Okay,
based on what evidence? What evidence? Are you saying that...
The AR-15 is used by United States military for offensive combat?
Because it's not. The M-4 and the M-16 select fire are used by the United States military.
Yeah, okay. Will you guys give that any kind of a, even a nod? The opinion by Judge Seth Afram
pointed to the court. Excuse me. pointed to the court's prior ruling that found the restriction
didn't heavily burden residents' self-defense rights. Excuse me?
I want to know where the state of Massachusetts ever got the notion that they had any right,
any constitutional authority, to burden the free exercise of that right at all.
You don't get to put an infringement on it and tell, well, that's not that bad of an infringement.
Suck it up and go home. Don't be such a baby. We're only infringing it a little bit.
Come on. You're not going to die. You can still carry some of these other guns. You just don't need
these. You don't get to tell us what we may or may not need to repel state government forces or
federal government forces, because that's the idea behind the people owning those guns.
We don't carry them through our streets and use them for self-defense. We have concealed guns for
that. You don't have any authority to put any infringements, any burden.
You don't get to say, well, it doesn't burden that exercise heavily. You have no constitutional
right or authority to burden it in the least in the first place. The decision,
I'll get this. This is another reason that I despise Mitt Romney.
faux Republican, and you can spell that F-A-U-X or F-O-E,
the decision from the First Circuit quoted him and quoted some of his comments supporting the ban
on these weapons, and he called them instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting
down and killing people. So he thinks that they were Originally designed for the sole purpose of
hunting down other human beings and killing them. Yeah, I'm sure that when Eugene Stoner was
designing the AR-10 and the AR-15, he was probably thinking, you know, I'm going to design a
rifle that people can hunt down and kill other people with. Yeah. Matter of fact,
my boss, Reed Knight. He was mentored by Mr. Stoner. I don't know if you realize that.
He actually owns the Stoner name now. That's why when you look on the right side of a Knight's
Armament rifle, an SR-15 or SR-25 or the KS-1, 2s, 3s, or 4s,
it'll say on the right side, Knight's Armament. On the other side, Stoner rifle.
He owns the name.
Since Stoner obviously designed this rifle with the express purpose of people just picking them up
and hunting down and killing other people, I'm sure that that sentiment was passed on to my boss
since he was mentored by Mr. Stoner. And I'm sure that, you know,
matter of fact. Matter of fact, I saw him the other day and I heard him say, he said,
Royce, you know what? These rifles are perfect for hunting people down and killing them. And I
said, yeah, amen, Mr. Knight. I can't wait to buy about three or four more of them. Yeah. Matter of
fact, you know, it's a company slogan now. Matter of fact, it's on the main sign entering into the
complex, Knight's Armament, for when you want to hunt people down and kill them. And I hope you
understand the sarcasm and the tongue-in-cheek I'm using here that says no such thing. Here's the
sad fact of the matter. That a lot of the liberals who don't understand that they're being used by
communists, they don't understand. There is evil in this world.
Not just on the street level, in the government level. And the people are caught between them.
And they have the right to have the means and the ability to defend themselves against both forms
of evil rather than allowing themselves to be sandwiched in between those two forces of evil,
like the poor people of New York City are dealing with right now. Back to the article.
During oral argument in March, Judge Joshua Dunlap criticized the state's position.
on the low defensive value for the AR-15. Well, if it has such a low defensive value,
why does the U.S. military use it to defend the United States?
Or the same platform, I should say. And compared the government's weighing of that value against
the use of the weapon in offensive circumstances with an outdated...
-shifting analysis, and he's referring to the Heller decision, that the Supreme Court tried to end
in District of Columbia v. Heller. That 2008 decision enshrined a constitutional right to own a
handgun for self-defense purposes. Hey, not just a handgun. Any battle implement of war.
If I was sitting on the Supreme Court, And these assault weapons ban cases came before me.
My only question, if somebody would say, well, or ask Royce,
does the constitution cover the AR-15? Well,
I would say, well, I think it covers more than the AR-15. It also covers the Tommy gun. It covers
the M4, the M16. It covers the M2 50 caliber machine gun.
It covers the squad automatic weapon. It covers the Bradley fighting vehicle because my analysis
and my judgment would be based on one thing and one thing only. Is it a battle capable weapon that
the people can use to defend themselves against a tyrannical government if necessary? If yes,
then it's covered by the Second Amendment. And that's what Chief Justice Royce just told you right
there. How about that? No, I'm not a judge. The panel also rejected as meritless the store owner's
argument that the Massachusetts ban is unconstitutional because it bars them from selling firearms
that stores in other states may sell. Ephraim said this. States may reach different conclusions
about what types of firearms may be sold within their legislative jurisdiction without violating
the Equal Protection Clause. No, you can't. Where did you get that crap from? Besides from your
posterior... They certainly may not decide any such thing. They can't reach any conclusion that
runs afoul of the Second and Fourteenth Amendment. And this judge should be thrown off the bench
and into a jail cell. State-enacted gun control law is just as constitutionally repugnant as all
the federal gun control laws are. The Second Amendment is clear and plain. The Fourteenth Amendment
is clear and plain. I don't know how much more you guys, all of you justices in the parallel
judicial universe, why do you fail consistently to consult the actual text of the Supreme Law?
Because that's what this boils down to.
So Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said in a statement,
the decision shows gun safety laws. They're not gun safety laws, honey. Not in the least.
They're infringement laws and they're unlawful constitutionally. These laws can protect the public
while surviving Second Amendment scrutiny.
What Second Amendment scrutiny? I didn't see any in this decision at all. They didn't use the
Second Amendment. Where in this decision was any portion of the text of the Second Amendment even
mentioned or applied by the judges involved here? Huh? Well,
now we're going to go out to Illinois. Oh, boy. What a sewer.
And there you definitely have the thugs in high and low places.
Totally abusing the citizenry there. In an article by Megan Crapo,
this is from July 9th, it says, Illinois ban on AR-15s is constitutional,
according to the Seventh Circuit and their ruling. Yeah. That's what they claim.
The panel divided among similar lines to the Appeals Corps' 2023 decision, throwing out a
preliminary injunction on the law, with Judge Frank Easterbrook upholding the ban as Chief Judge
Michael Brennan said he'd rule against it. This time, Judge Amy St.
Eve was the deciding vote and pinned the majority opinion. The restrictions on AR-15s and 30
-round magazines, she wrote, are consistent with the principles that underpin our nation's
tradition of firearms regulation. What tradition would that be, honey? Feel free to explain.
Please expound on this rich tradition of gun regulation by the government,
especially state governments. She said whether to adopt them is thus a decision reposed in our
elected representatives. In a dissent, Judge Brennan wrote that the U.S.
Constitution bars governments from restricting weapons commonly owned for self-defense.
So because the people have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 rifle and its magazine as their weapon
of choice, they are protected by the Second Amendment. Well, once again, it goes deeper than that.
My question and the question of any of these justices should be. Is it a battle-capable weapon
that the citizens may have access to to use it to defend themselves in the event that the
government waxes tyrannical against them? If so, it is covered and protected by the text of the
Second Amendment. Yeah. You see how quickly they went for this tradition of regulation and totally
bypassed the text of it? How convenient. Yeah, when you totally disregard the text of the Second
Amendment, it's easy to jump around and try to find a rich history of regulation against guns.
Oh, boy, I tell you what, this is a bunch of hooey. The Seventh Circuit's 2023 decision determined
that the banned weapons were so close to those used for military purposes that they likely didn't
fall under the scope of the Second Amendment. That's bass-ackwards, people. Bass-ackwards.
If they are military weapons, we have the right to own them. Look up.
I am so sick of this. I say it all the time, and I don't know why people in high places don't just
follow this advice. Look up the word arms. What does the word arms mean?
It means any battle-capable weapon, and I'm putting my own definition on it based on the 1828 Noah
Webster's Dictionary, any battle-capable weapon that can be used for offense or defense against
marauding forces, whether they be government forces or Antifa forces or Muslim forces,
which we're going to be fighting them in our streets very soon. This is backwards. You don't get to
tell us that the people don't have a right to military weapons. We absolutely do. You apparently
have never read the Second Amendment. In Thursday's opinion, St.
Eve wrote that the ban is constitutional. How? Never once did you use the text,
even assuming that AR-15s do qualify as arms because the statute is in line with the country's
historical traditions. The U.S. Supreme Court set that test for gun laws in its 2022 decision,
and that's they're referring to the Bruin there. Illinois restrictions on AR-15s easily meet that
standard, she wrote. saying legislatures have long imposed restrictions on particularly dangerous
weapons. I'll tell you something else, honey. Legislatures have long had those restrictions shot
down in courts, which I hope that's going to be done to yours in the Supreme Court decision
regarding this same matter. Excuse me. She pointed to the Bowie knife,
which was greatly feared by people. And here's my thing. If you're afraid of Bowie knives,
you carry a gun. And somebody pulls one out, you ventilate them. No, not just pulls it out,
but I mean, threatens you with one. That's how you deal with that. That's certainly how the old
West boys dealt with that stuff. You pulled a knife on them, they would blow you away. You catch
about three or four right in your chest real quick.
She pointed to the Bowie Knife, which she said was extremely popular in the 19th century, but
caused especially grievous injuries, and it was therefore heavily regulated by state legislatures.
Really? How many? How many? Do your homework on that. How many states outlawed the Bowie Knife?
And usually they didn't outlaw it. They outlawed it being carried in a manner. to sow terror
amongst the people. That's what they outlawed. They didn't outlaw them carrying a Bowie knife.
I think you should carry whatever knife you want. I mean, if you want to carry a saber, carry a
freaking saber. If that's what you want to rely on to defend yourself and your family, I don't
care. She said the AR-15 is more dangerous than, for example, a handgun.
It has a longer effective range. It fires. at about three times the velocity,
and large-capacity magazines amplify each and every one of the AR-15's dangerous characteristics
by allowing a shooter to fire more of these lethal rounds without breaking to reload.
So much to unpack there. I'm not even sure I want to dive into it, but... dangerous characteristics
of the AR-15? Any gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it and for whatever purpose
they're holding it. That's it. Guns have no morals.
They have no moral stature. The gun's morality is decided by the owner. You don't get to tell us
that if we own these that we are immoral and we're just looking for a reason to hunt people down
and shoot them.
Every other appellate circuit to consider the issue has agreed that bans on AR-15s and similar
quote-unquote especially dangerous weapons are constitutional she wrote that in the opinion these
courts have coalesced around a largely overlapping set of historical regulations what historical
regulations imposing targeted restrictions on weapons whose danger and lethality stand out okay why
do your state police have them why are these judges protected by police officers that have them If
the citizens in uniform can have them, then so can the citizens who are not in uniform.
While the Illinois law covers a slew of firearms, Thursday's decision doesn't address its
restrictions on certain kinds of pistols and shotguns, saying those are, quote, better left for
another day and remain open to challenge on an as-applied basis.
Yeah. In a lengthy dissent, Brennan said the Constitution protects weapons that are in common use
for lawful purpose. Hey, it protects more than that, okay? And noted that millions of Americans own
AR-15s. Governments may regulate dangerous and unusual weapons, he noted, adding that dangerous is
a, quote, a term of art. He said, historically, dangerous weapons were those particularly suited
for criminality or overwhelmingly used by criminals. And he's not wrong there.
Again, the point he's making there is a gun is only as moral as the person holding it.
He said, whether a firearm is useful for self-defense is not a decision for judges. Amen and amen.
The people choose which weapons to own for self-defense. There it is.
There it is right there. We the people are the ones that choose what guns we need or we think we
may need. You don't get to tell us that we can only have certain types of firearms and the only
reason you're doing that is to make us weaker than your enforcers in the first place. That's really
all that's for. You don't get to choose for us.
You don't get to tell us you only need 10 rounds in a magazine to defend yourself. You don't get to
decide that. You don't get to decide that at all. If that's the case, why do your law enforcement
officers across your state carry high-capacity Glocks,
Berettos, Smith & Wessons with 17 plus 1 round capacity,
not to mention four or five magazines on their duty belt, too? Who are you to tell the people that
we are a second class, we are actually a third class? Because you've got the ruling class,
and then you've got the enforcing class, and then you have the people. As if we're beneath all of
you. I've got news for all of you. We are above you. We're above the government.
We're above the enforcers. You are all our servants. You work for us.
We pay you. You don't get to tell us you can't have that gun.
We can't trust you with it. You don't need it. It's not the bill of needs. It's not the freaking
bill of needs. The state doesn't get to tell the citizenry which guns are suitable or not suitable
for our own defense, especially in defense against a marauding government.
That's just the bottom line.
There's more I could apply here, but I think I've made the point. There are two separate and
parallel judicial systems in this country, and that battle is going to be decided soon in the
Supreme Court. And it remains to be seen what Roberts does. We already know Jackson and Sotomayor
are going to, you know, they're communists. They don't want us owning battle-capable weapons.
We know Thomas and Scalia are going to rule correctly. I don't trust Kavanaugh,
and I don't trust Roberts at all. I think they've been compromised,
but that's just my two cents. So be in prayer for your nation. Be in prayer for those people making
the decisions up there. The good book says the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord.
So you pray that he turns their hearts. and causes them to rule correctly because we're not just
facing the threat of a marauding government we are facing active violent communist forces in this
country in the form of antifa the democrat socialist alliance and everything else uh and the
muslims that they've all teamed up with now and you can see that perfect embodiment in the person
of mayor mom donnie so you stay in contact with your reps and you stock up on high capacity
magazines and you buy some extra ar-15s and you buy more ammo and you buy more beans bullets and
bandages And you always carry a firearm wherever you go.
Danger is everywhere and anywhere. If you step out your front door, make sure you are strapped
because you might get clapped. And never forget, incoming rounds always have the right of way.
Royce out.