Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban UPHELD! – The Legal Brief

Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show
where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of
the gun world. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we’re talking
about the newest federal court decision which found AR-15s are NOT protected under the Second Amendment! Late last week the Federal District Court
for the District of Massachusetts issued an opinion and order in Worman v. Healey. The suit was brought last January and challenged
Massachusetts’ Assault Weapons Ban. Jon did a video on that ban back in 2016. The ban was adopted by the legislature in
1998 and largely mimicked the federal ban that was adopted in 1994. As you may have guessed, the Massachusetts
ban prohibited the possession, transfer or sale of certain “assault weapons” like the
Colt AR-15 along with duplicates or copies of enumerated firearms. It also banned the possession, transfer or
sale of fixed or detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The law did have a grandfather provision in
it, meaning if you had it before the law was enacted, you could keep it. The Plaintiffs brought three counts, two of
which pertained to the ban itself and one challenging the Enforcement Notice issued
by Maura Healey in July of 2016. If you don’t remember the internet firestorm
around that, let’s do a quick jog down memory lane. The Notice stated, among other things, that
a firearm was a duplicate or a copy of a prohibited firearm if the firearm’s “internal functional
components are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an Enumerated
Weapon,” or if the firearm “has a receiver that is the same or interchangeable with the
receiver of an Enumerated Weapon.” Essentially, the interpretation opened the
floodgates to increasing the scope of the ban. The Court began its opinion with a quick analysis
of the relevant case law, in particular language coming from Heller. The Court focused on parts of the opinion
that stated the right to bear arms was not unlimited and that firearms protected under
the Second Amendment were those in common use at the time. You may remember that last part from the Miller
case. The opinion also quoted some language from
McDonald and Caetano cases. Specifically, the Court reiterated that the
Second Amendment extends to arms that were not in existence at the time of the founding
and does not only protect weapons useful in warfare. The challenge to the Enforcement Notice was
based around the idea that it violated the Plaintiffs’ right to due process as it retroactively
criminalized the transfer of thousands of Massachusetts compliant firearms, and thus
would expose the Plaintiffs to criminal penalties, retroactively. While the Notice did contain a provision that
stated it would only apply to individuals after the date it was issued, it lacked any
language stating the same for dealers. The Court dismissed this part of the Plaintiffs’
claim. It found that the Notice lacked any binding
effect or force of law and was not a final agency action. As a result, it found that the claim was not
ripe for adjudication. Quick side note, when courts look to claims
brought by a party, they must be ripe for adjudication. Perhaps more easily put, “a claim is not ripe
for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated,
or indeed may not occur at all.” Still not quite clear? We don’t deal in the world of hypotheticals. Counts One and Three of the complaint dealt
with the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban. Count one was a facial challenge to the law
itself, meaning that the Plaintiffs’ claimed the law on its face was unconstitutional. Count three challenged that the law was unconstitutionally
vague, which would violate the Plaintiffs’ right to due process. In particular, the Plaintiffs’ claimed that
the language “copies or duplicates” was not defined in the law and that the Enforcement
Notice gave insufficient guidance as to what a copy or duplicate was. As a result, the vagueness had a chilling
effect on their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights and fails to warn
ordinary citizens of what conduct the law prohibits. In looking at the first claim, the Court determined
that the Second Amendment does not protect firearms and magazines banned by the law. It found that while the Caetano case stated
that the holding in Heller rejected the notion that only weapons useful in warfare were protected,
that this idea was rejected not to conclude that all weapons useful in warfare were protected
but rather that some weapons used in warfare were not protected. As an example, it quoted from Heller that
the premise was rejected because that might mean the NFA’s restriction on machine guns
would be unconstitutional, since they were used in warfare in 1939. Thus, the question the Court looked at in
order to determine whether the law was constitutional was: “are the banned firearms and magazines
weapons that are most useful in military service and thus outside the protection of the Second
Amendment?” Looking at the undisputed facts submitted
by the parties, the Court answered this question with a unequivocal yes. And yes, the Court did acknowledge the difference
between a semi-automatic rifle and a machine gun in this analysis. The Plaintiffs also argued that the AR-15
was extraordinarily popular and that the law would be “unconstitutional as it amounts to
a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society
for a lawful purpose.” The Court rejected this argument, finding
that the AR-15’s present day popularity is “not constitutionally material” and that “the
test [was] not the AR-15’s present day popularity but whether it is a weapon ‘most useful in
military service.'” The Judge ends his analysis by quoting two
separate passages from the late Justice Scalia, with whom he seems to have a bone to pick. The Court then looked at the Plaintiff’s last
claim about the vagueness of the law and lack of guidance in the Enforcement Notice. The Court declined to review whether a facial
challenge was even permissible because the claim would fail on its merits. For those that are unfamiliar with vagueness
challenges, laws are required to be clear enough to allow a person of ordinary intelligence
fair notice of what is prohibited. Here the Plaintiffs challenged the language
of “copies or duplicates” as the term was not defined in the law. The Court, rejected this challenge, finding
that the “phrase’s plain meaning provides a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice
as to what is prohibited…” Moreover, it stated that the “general definition
[of semiautomatic assault weapon] contains both a list of enumerated weapons and several
[features] tests that citizens may use as a second data point if they are uncertain
as to what constitutes a ‘copy or duplicate.'” The opinion also takes a number of shots at
the late Justice Scalia, implying that he would believe such a decision would have been
permissible under the Second Amendment. In particular, the judge noted that the popularity
of the rifle was immaterial to the analysis under the Second Amendment. It appears the Judge ignored the dissent filed
by Justices Thomas and Scalia to a denial of certiorari in Friedman v. City of Highland
Park, IL., where the two Justices stated “The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because
it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style
semiautomatic rifles.The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do
so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is
needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.” As you may have figured out, we’re seeing
a lot of courts choosing to ignore the Supreme Court’s precedents in Heller, McDonald, and
Caetano. Judges appear to be creating their own rules
rather than following what the highest court in the land has said the law is. Now a lot of you have been asking what happens
next? The plaintiffs can appeal the decision to
the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which is the first level appellate court. Currently this decision only is binding in
Massachusetts, however, an adverse decision in the First Circuit would have an effect
on Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. We’ll be following this one to see how it
plays out. A number of you have
been sending us links about different rally’s around the country. For those of you here in Pennsylvania, there’s
an annual rally that happening in Harrisburg on April 30th at 10 A.M. in the rotunda of
the capitol building. Join us there, and voice your support for
the second amendment. Let’s let these politicians know that we’re
not going to accept ANY new gun laws. Are you sick of bad information finding its
way around the internet? Then you need to share this video. Make sure you hit that like button and get
subscribed. If you enjoyed the video, consider supporting
us via the links down in the video description. If you are looking for a longer version of
the videos we make here on TGC, be sure to check out The Gun Collective podcast on iTunes. And as always thanks for watching!

100 thoughts on “Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban UPHELD! – The Legal Brief

  1. Any judges who rules against the second amendment is a traitor and should be tried for treason and sentenced to death.

  2. I like how they say the at 15 is so bad but just look at the damage compared to an ak47 and in my onion the ak is harder get dirty and Easter to fire and most times holds more rounds than a ar15 and the gun is much more common but the at is so scary and black and the ak and Amy hunting or semi auto gun like the mini14 and any fucking pistol that is semi auto like a glock one of the easiest guns to use in the world and a much higher mass shooting rate than the ar15 but it is a pistol so it can’t do as much harm as a big scary black rifle but the rounds are nearly the same size and the glock is much cheaper once i bought a glock for 250$ that is more that doble the amount of the ar15 so any people that say the ar15 is so bad just read this and think wait Wh did I just huge a gun by the way it looks

  3. Will you guy's that are free and sain take your state back, it's us as the people that have these right's, who the fuck are these ugly faces saying you can't have what ever gun

  4. "No leglislative act contrary to the Constitution is valid." James Madison. Fedralist Papers 78 paragraph 11. Goggle it.

  5. Kinda pisses me off your throwing in things to buy especially patriotic items. When our God given rights are being encumbered. I don't know the exact way to do it but you can fight the laws legally. Then there's the good ole do not comply. Then ultimately they'll push to far and the tyrannical elites will feel us God fearing patriots (world wide) push back. In Jesus name God bless you all.

  6. So if the 2nd ammendment only applies to the weapons of that time, does that mean you can only have freedom of speech when said out loud not on social media and blah blah blah.

  7. All guns were intended to be covered by the 2nd ammendment. The purpose was to be just as armed as the government. Any and all gun bans are unconstitutional and should result in civil war.

  8. * 99.9963% of Guns in America NEVER murder anyone EVER
    * 99.995% of AR-Style Guns NEVER murder anyone EVER
    * You are 227 TIME MORE LIKELY to be SAVED by a gun than Murdered by one
    * 8.65 TIMES MORE LIKELY to die using your Cell Phone than murdered by a Rifle
    * 3.6 TIME MORE LIKELY to die in a Car Accident than to be murdered by a Gun
    * As a side note – You are more likely to be Struck by Lightning than to be Murdered by a Rifle in the USA.
    * In the State of MN – You are EIGHT TIMES more likely to be Struck by Lightning than to be Murdered by a Rifle.
    * * (1 in 700,000 Lightning – Top Google search referencing National Geographic, 1in 810,000 Rifle Homicide Calculated)
    * One more thing, Gun Homicides are going DOWN according to the FBI (2016 – 11,138; 2017 – 10,982)
    * *

  9. I remember something about infringement in the US constitution. . .I feel like most people know what the word 'infringe' means. I also feel that these judges seem to not know what the word means. Someone should send them back to school.

  10. It's all infringement.. thus all null and void. Thats it how it is dont play their game.. they can pass whatever stupid laws they like we do not need to follow them give them the finger.. dont matter what courts says what they are all null n void.. that's the real..

  11. Nannychusets sucks!
    I WILL NEVER live there

    The Free Northern New England states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are far more 2A friendly, we have Permitless (Constitutional) concealed carry, something that terrifies the political parasites in Nannychusets

    Law Abiding Citizens of Massachusetts, rise up and kick the parasites out, return your state to its past glories, after all, it was the site that Democracy was born, it’s sad to see the state it has devolved to

  12. So South Park, family guy and anything else someone finds offensive can be banned because when the 1st amendment was written it was concerning things current to that time….fuck yourself.

  13. The judge is a moron, the AR-15 has NEVER been used by the U.S. military. The military or "Weapon of war" is and always has been the M-16/M-4 which are select fire, the AR-15 is and me or has been
    But then lefties are master of disinformation. Shout the lies lies ng enough.and load enough and eventually people.cpme to believe it.

  14. Join fire arms policy
    Join riffle owners of
    Join gun owners of
    Visit their website. They understand law abiding citizens have rights.

  15. I hope the politicians become victims of home invasions. Drunk drivers kill more people than guns. I guess cars will be banned next.

  16. Heller pg. 19-20 any common use weapon may not be banned. If you don't want to fight the socialist then leave the state or deal with what you get.

  17. The second ammendment requires an ar15 today. We are required to be able to defend the constitution. We cannot do this with muskets

  18. Fuck the (glorified 22) AR-15 cry babies. A good old cowboy lever gun in 44 magnum will take down anything, you pussies!

  19. I wish the damn scotus would make a final decision and be done. No more of this circuit judges playing king bull crap.

  20. Tyranny from the state that started the revolution against the tyranny of England. Sad. There needs to be a Boston tea party part 2.

  21. Gee 5 million ARs where will they find enough suckers to go out a try to pick them up from their rightful owners? Besides there's a lot more than 5 million. There's no less than 50 million well armed and pissed off Patriot Americans just waiting for that day to come.

  22. Let's see the musket was the weapon of war back then. And it was a hunting and self defense rifle too. Oh shit that sounds like an AR to me. Stupid MFers

  23. If we’re being honest, the NFA IS UN-constitutional. To say the AR-15 being the most popular rifle in the USA, is NOT in “common use” is insane. If it’s owned by more people than any other rifle, it’s safe to say it qualifies as “common use”.

  24. Yeah, but what Young did do is make a great case that real assault rifles, such as the M16, are protected by the 2nd Amendment

  25. Blah, blah, blah bottom line is Democrats are tyrannical Islamo fascist and won't stop until all guns are confiscated and all Trump supporters are locked up in internment camps where they are either reeducated or exterminated (pushed into ovens)

  26. They are the same weapons of that time they had what the military had we don’t even have that we have semi auto and we don’t have the larger LMG’s and we don’t get SMG’s sub machine guns so back then they had at least an equal to that of the military’s weaponry we don’t have that now and they are still trying to get it and I know that most already know this and I’m beating a dead horse bc there is little we can do about it unless we do a lot

  27. ARMS means anything we damn well desire to own and use. Infringed is the only other word that matters. You know what we will have to do to restore liberty.. and give no quarter when we do. This will need to be a lesson not soon forgotten by posterity!

  28. Gun lobbiests, the simple solution is. Make it so they have to add this phrase to any gun control language.

    "And to be equal and fair to it's people. To prevent infringement on the equality of the rights of Americans to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

    No military, policing, or security groups may have access to these either."

    … You know like the language of the 2nd amendment intended.

  29. It boggles my mind how liberals in Massachusetts make all these gun laws, and are completely ignorant to how guns work…

  30. To bad "" assult weapons have been banned forever ago. Its a fuckin rifle ppl. You do relise shotguns are semi too right! And 22s and alot of other guns. Fuckin lefties! Ar dont stand for assault rifle! Fuckn fuds.. Also if you assult someone with a spork guess what!?, thats an assult weapon too lol

  31. MEH Just get a Ruger PC carbine. It's a take down so easier to carry + store(IE hide from State Gestapo). Plus 9mm ammo is cheaper.

  32. Virtually almost every gun and weapon that was made throughout history was for war, the founding fathers were not ignorant to that fact, during and after the revolutionary and civil war private citizens owned most if not every type of weapon that the military used, during the Indian wars the citizens were better armed than than the military due to the development of the lever action and the military slow adoption of it,. I'll stop there or else i wont stop with my rant.

  33. Here in Cunntecticut, my redneck neighbors (brothers…) & their friend STOLE (& got away with it…) an AR-15 Bushmaster (ser. # CRB033498) from a gun shop in Columbia, CT in July, 2012 & the State Police from Troop K(GB) didn't even get a search warrant or go to their property (an ex-junk yard…) supposedly 'cause there's a state cop in the family – I say BS on CORRUPT so-called "law enforcement…" (FTP!…)

  34. An AR-15 IS NOT an Assault Weapon! an assault weapon has automatic fire. An AR-15 has NO AUTO FIRE ABILITY! It is semi auto this is a Technology that has been around since the late 1800's. The leftists not only no nothing about fire arms they are complete idiots. Hint for the left, stop listening to the Fake News media they are stupid and they LIE!

  35. Anyone with any intelligence whatsoever knows the founding fathers knew that technology would change fire arms and was implied by the writing of the second amendment…but because it doesn't state it to the exact letter the communists will use that against American freedom of firearms . It's time to replace the goverment and strengthen the 2nd amendment

  36. Just because something looks like a law, sounds like a law doesn't mean it is one……if it runs afoul of the US Constitution / Bill of Rights, it is NOT a law.

    Do like the politicians do to our immigration laws….wipe your ass on it and walk away…'s null and void.

  37. Let the judge and all the Communists in the legislature who voted for this bill go door to door and collect the AR-15s. Then they can have them shoved up their asses!

  38. You would kind of think, they who hold the guns, are the ones who write the law. What the hell is going on here folks?

  39. That €unt AG Healy got reprimanded on
    the appeal, ignored that judge and shopped
    around to get the challenge thrown out.
    She's a little Hitler, doing the bidding of elitists.

  40. Firearm registration is only good for one single solitary purpose. Firearm Confiscation to be conducted at a future date to be decided by the the government. I will only type is one time- DO NOT REGISTER ANY FIREARMS, EVER! PERIOD! If you do, you deserve what you get for it. Or rather what you'll lose (your weapons) for doing it.

  41. Try to remember Lexington and Concord… 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' did not come up as item #2 on the Bill of Rights by mistake. But traitors disguised as politicians and judges have no problem shitting all over the Constitution to get votes or sell books. The Constitution is the cornerstone of this country. The Constitution has always kept us grounded. That is why politicians and judges etc are sworn to defend the Constitution. When political gain outweighs what the Constitution is to America it's time for a reset. Our founding fathers would be ashamed to know what's happened in Massachusetts.

  42. If I were a Massachusetts citizen, I would be an outlaw. These fucktard politicians can kiss my ass, I've had enough and will no longer comply with their bullshit. Fuck 'em.

  43. AR-15s aren't used in the military but also are?
    any and all gun bans are unconstitutional

    and yes before you ask
    i am not judge
    yes i do understand/know more than them
    Because these judges are activists and i take constitution for what it is

  44. No new guns laws and repeal old ones

    the people in Massachusetts should have an open carry rally at the court
    the judicial systems sucks and i'm shocked when i see a half good judge

  45. Why are you jumping to obey illegal laws? Treat these fake gun laws like Nasty Pelosi treats our immigration laws….wipe your ass on them and walk away.

  46. "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."

    seems like an infringement to me.






    “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, 1789

    “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”-(Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28)

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”-(Samuel Adams)*

    “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude THAT ARMY CAN NEVER BE FORMIDABLE TO THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE WHILE there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in DISCIPLINE and the USE OF ARMS , WHO STAND READY TO DEFEND THEIR OWN RIGHTS and THOSE of THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS . This APPEARS TO ME THE ONLY SUBSTITUTE that can be devised for a STANDING ARMY , and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”-(Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, Jan 10, 1788)

    “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, THAT EVERY CITIZEN who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, BUT EVEN OF HIS PERSONAL SERVICES TO THE DEFENCE OF IT , and consequently that the CITIZENS OF AMERICA (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age SHOULD BE BORNE ON THE MILITIA ROLLS , PROVIDED WITH UNIFORM ARMS, AND SO FAR ACCUSTOMED TO THE USE OF THEM , that the TOTAL STRENGTH of the COUNTRY might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” -(George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton May 2, 1783)

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." – Patrick Henry

    *"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is
    preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, And debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." – Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775)*

    "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." – Thomas Jefferson

    “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tenche Coxe, 1788

    "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."-(George Washington)
    "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, Their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas." – (G. Brock Chisholm, co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health, Former director of UN World Health Org). (preposterous)

    "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance."-(George Herbert Walker Bush, Speech at the U.N, Feb 1, 1992). (Traitorous & Shameful)

    "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”-(Samuel Adams)

    "Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness] it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."-(Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."-Cicero, 42 B.C.)(WOLVES OR COWARDS?) DEFINITELY NOT PATRIOTS!

    "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"-(Samuel Adams)

    "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."-(Thomas Jefferson)

    This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave."-(Elmer Davis)

    "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."-(Mark Twain)
    “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”-(Thomas Jefferson)

    "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case.  You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."-(Winston Churchill)
    "It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"-(Patrick Henry)

    "We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going and then we go with the drove."-(Mark Twain) (PART OF THE UNPATRIOTIC UNAMERICAN DROVE! WHAT A DISGRACE TO SUBMIT TO ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, EVER, EVER, EVER!?)

  48. Why gun control is unconstitutional ? Case law Marbury V Madison

    Gun control is unconstitutional the Supremacy clause of the constitution and Marbury V Madison Seem to make clear that if a law is in open violation to the constitution that law is null and void. The law cannot be in conflict with itself. Any law ordinance or amendment that violates the U.S. Constitution is null and void. An unjust Law is no law.

    Woman V Healy Found AR 15's are not protected under the second amendment. Nonsense!! Gun control = Deprivation of rights under color of law like the red flag law.

    "If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it he is obligated to do so"
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

    A.R. 15's are arms The 2nd Amendment states that we have a right to bear arms.
    This judge is in conflict with the law thus the ruling is null and void. An unjust law is no law. This also falls under violation 18 US Code § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights. Title 18 US Code § 242. Gun control forbidden Dick act of 1902 in the Militia act of 1903.

    The judge is an administrative clerk Under maritime law NOT Common law Judge.

    Which is a kangaroo court. Where the constitution is suspended, The yellow fringe on the American flag means martial law. BAR = British accredited registry. You're on the law of the sea. ****All Americans live on land ***** This judge is not following the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *