Supreme Court Issues 8-1 Decision Denying Second Amendment Preservation Act Protections!!! What Now? 

Yeah...they don't give a flying eff about all that. Hence why we are constantly dealing with attacks on just about every right spelled out in the constitution.

You can’t trust SCOTUS

We need a constitutional law enforcement Agency with a prosecutor that will actually prosecute state workers that violate our rights.

​Spread this idea

But

this is all that matters.

Marbury v Madison

OUR justice system is a big FUCKEN JOKE!!!!! When this SHIT is all over I SEE many government THUGS SWING IN PUBLIC WE THE PEOPLE have had FUCKEN ENOUGH!!!!SOON ALL WILL BE KNOWN BELIEVE!!!!!!!

The Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution.

YES

Agreed.

Are you uneasy? Is it that time of the month?

We dont need another layer of protection to the 2A. We already have the absolute right to keep and bear arms..

They’re all Federalist Society. They’re not on our side

They are a bunch of old white people attempting to placate a bunch of wild-eyed insane white 20 somethings. And more importantly they do not want the NYT writing bad things about them and their wives.

Yeah, if the president can ignore SCOTUS than why not me?

Ah democrats have a history of ignoring the supreme court. Going all the way back to their party founder. Andrew Jackson. Yknow the guy that did the trail of tears while telling the supreme court "You and what army?"

dont forget, the people have the 2A specifically to back them up in these assertions.

that's called a constitutional crisis

The first step in being free is living free. They can't get us all.

Agreed. We all know this is the game plan to keep delaying Second Amendment rights decisions and I'm sick of it!!!

Constitutionalism has failed

@@SchizoPost While I feel your pain, I must hasten to point out that we ain't done yet.

@@CaptainSeamus 2 more weeks

they overturned woe V wade, they are about to overturn Chevron. how do you do that and NOT worry that all the decisions you make being overturned by some future court? by rigidly sticking to a process that has as few appealable avenues as possible. by waiting for fully litigated cases, there's now way for a future court to overturn the decision due to improper procedure on that avenue. this is all about holding up long term legitimacy for these rulings.

Then the federal government will cut all funding and support out of spite

That’s what Sapa was

A state constitution would work as well. Oregon just used theirs to shut down measure 114. We're Fawked in Washington state for now. Just stacking freedom pills for now.

A spine is required for that Conservatives don't have those very much... Republicans don't have them at all... they are just mostly closet democrats now. The only people with a spine walking around a libertarians... and conservatives hate them almost as much as the demoncraps and the repukes hate them.

As long as states are federally funded; the feds run them.

Nice

None of this would happen if private gun dealers, stop people from straw purchase a gun every week and sell them on the street,or shops selling guns to know criminals, it is all about the money, period.

@@wendwllhickey6426 I'm not exactly sure I'm following what you're saying because it's not exactly worded for the best of comprehension however, people can try their best but how would you exactly know that something is going to be a straw purchase? Sometimes it's blatant but if it's not you'll never know

but the local law enforcement can also still aid the feds as well. its a dumb law.

Exactly.

States do not hold the power, the people do, if only my fellow man weren't sniveling cowards too afraid to bring these criminals to justice

Good luck with that

@@KY-np6ow Well, plenty of states are already disregarding Miller, Heller, Bruen, and Madison, so why not, right? This stopped being a fair fight in 1936

The United States Supreme Court, NOT the State, decides on how it applies, care of the United States Constitution.

Judges tend to triple down when people start to come for them. States just need to ban federal funding. If you aren't taking their money, you don't have to help them do their jobs. But if you want a national guard and all the other stuff that comes with federal funding, you do what the feds say.

thats the only thing that would get results. follow the BLM model.

Physically? Explain!😮

@@flakesinyershoe8137Lol not remotely true, there’s numerous states that ignore federal laws and still get funding. Which means they pick and choose which states get funded based on their own corrupt goals. You can’t have some states openly ignoring federal immigration laws and drug laws, then proceed to crack down on a state that’s removing federal gun laws. That just displays the fact there is no law and the federal government is authoritarian. This whole court process is a joke.

Tar and feathers was a real thing, and when 'authorities' forget they're human, they must be reminded. Too much distance from accountability makes people evil. It draws from us our worst when we don't have forceful feedback. ESPECIALLY the kinds of scum that wanted power in the first place.

Como here!

When does the fighting start?

@@flakesinyershoe8137when you personally grow a spine.

@@GhettoFabulous99 must be a whole lot of spineless gun owners out there considering the fact that the fed boys have been going full ruby ridge for decades and we don't seem to be that upset about state boys joining in on the fun either. If gun owners were ever going to do anything, we missed the bus.

My question is I’m still confused? MO doesn’t have any bans or anything so what does this mean

Court rulings don’t matter anymore. The federal government is openly ignoring numerous rulings, they’re openly violating federal law and they’re openly removing 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments outright. This is the end, war is here.

Do you think the First Amendment right to Free Speech is absolute, even though it's phrased that way? You don't mind children hearing obscenities and sexually explicit language or reading books or seeing movies with what you object to in them? Do you support banning ANY books? Can I yell 'Fire" the next time you and your family are in a crowded theater? Can I use "fighting words" like sitting next to you and your wife at a bar and asking her how much she charges for a juicy BJ? Are we to get rid of libel & slander laws even if libel & slander are often used to destroy innocent peoples' lives & careers? There are many restrictions to what is written in the Constitution as an ABSOLUTE right, yet everybody has SOMETHING they would ban of Free Speech. Can children's Saturday morning cartoon shows start using George Carlin's 7 Words You Can't Say on TV?

It should 1000%! will it? No

@@atomsk7639 I hear some cases can change other things. There was a challenge to the EPA's authority that would change the way all government agencies such as the ATF can operate. Maybe this case can be used to shut down sanctuary cities for anything?

Well the way the law being written where it's the people holding the government accountable, and not the government accountable it has parallels but I would imagine that the places where sanctuary has taken root will likely not be changing without electoral consequence. Because there is no law granting citizens the ability to sue municipalities/states for not aiding a reluctant federal government in enforcement. Now what would be interesting to see is a family, after a tragedy, suing for damages from state/local municipalities for wanton disregard for enforcement, but that would likely get tossed because the precedent established is enforcement is discressionary.

I think the state of Missouri should just ignore the SCOTUS ruling and allow them to be arrested and/or sued anyway... sanctuary city rules play against and point out that they are ignoring them anyway, so might as well ignore this as well... SCOTUS stepped on it pretty badly on this one.

Not Constitutionally, no the Constitution does not aid unConstitutional and illegal invaders and insurgents and Hessians.

They’d never allow that. The Disarmament agenda is primary goal in establishing communism in America officially. The hordes of illegals are being brought up here to replace our military.

Strictly speaking "sanctuary cities" can't exist legitimately and are functionally DNC Shitlord election interference programs where they exploit border jumpers to buy voting blocks.

The whole u.s. is a liberal democrat shietwhole.

No, it needs to interpret it correctly. Look at my post above. & BTW, I am a member of the NRA going back to before Wayne LaPierre & Tanya Metaxa ran their coup in 1986 to turn it from a hunters,' sportsmans' & collectors' association to a secessionist tool for arming insurrectionists & paranoid conspiracy theorists. Metaxa had to step down when she was caught posting bomb-making instructions on her website - not appropriate even for today's NRA - but LaPierre continues to persist, like a case of worms in the intestines of the organization. The NRA was pro-gun-control before LaPierre took over & began embezzling members' dues & contributions for things like bespoke Ermenegildo Zegna suits & living the high life. PS. I have a Zegna suit, paid for fair & square, so I know what they are worth. I learned at age 10 (65 years ago) when we were shooting .22 LR in overnight camp that I could group my shots in the center 2 rings prone, kneeling & standing when nobody else in my bunk could even hit the target. I became a serious competitive shooter in college & have participated in target & combat competitions until just recently. I had a CCW permit in Florida (still valid if I still lived there) & now that I'm in NJ, am fighting the red-tape applying for one here since they are a rare state that does not have reciprocity. I am by no means anti-gun, only anti-morons-with-guns. And that's most of the gun-owning community I've met at the ranges over the years.

ABSOLUTELY

The Supreme Court is the most dangerous part of the three branches of the federal government. Anyways, Americans stopped being truly free after 1861.

Why? It's sad to see you people don't understand what the second amendment says. What grade did you people finish in school,?

If it is in front of them, they need to decide it. That is a change I would make in an Article V convention. Denying to decide this stuff is untenable. Rights damaged are rights denied Choosing not to interfere is still interfering since you had the option. They can't absolve themselves of the choice they had. Non interference is still interference.

its almost like they are agents of the deep state establishment party or something.

Hahaha Natural Rights are dependent on MEN allowing you to be " Free "

A gun is not a toy or a recreational vehicle. You have picked the wrong time to want stability in government. Rome is falling as it always does. You either take up the fight or strap on the yoke. Your society does not offer you any other option at this time.

And what constitutes a law abiding gun owner, because the government says so??? A law abiding gun owner who on the Constitution own a gun, it's there inherent right not a privilege, the right to bare arms, not the privilege, you regulate privileges, not rights big difference... And distinctly two different actions,

To start you don’t need a ar 15

@@mikevella2544 says who??? If I want a AR 15 than I'll have one, 1st amend freedom of choice my friend, let's make sure people understand, the only regulation the state or government can do legally is regulate what type of weapons are produced, but if you owned one that is banned prior to it's having been banned is grandfathered in,

lol. nothing short of actually using the 2A in a deliberate show of force is going to change anything. but yeah we should just keep on voting and playing the legal games while our population is replaced by non-patriotic 3rd worlders who couldnt care less about the constitution.

😂😂😂❤

The SC put in a "TLDR" the second amendment.

Let's hope so, but i'm not convinced yet.

They need to hurry their asses up!!

God Bless Texas!

@@Strider86 Washington DC accepted it as true when Texas joined the American Union...... so this applies to the 50 States as a inherent right

I'm surprised the feds haven't indicted him on some TRUMPed up charge!

@@snow_tacknives2024 absolutely!

Mo. Sheriffs are as corrupt at biden.

Since when is the counties sheriffs dept above corruption. The whole system is corrupt. Just go sit in court and see how your county treats those who must use court appointed attorney!

Part of the communist takeover.

I am diametrically opposed to just about every principle extolled on this channel, but really appreciate the Armed Scholar's careful treatment of legal firearm developments.

Ozempic it’s easy

The 2A is our friend.

Hasn't been. They take every opportunity to use process to avoid doing their job and protecting our rights.

You Missourian's, need to vote better people in office, who honor our U.S. Constitution. It's your lawmakers that are wanting to restrict gun laws.

Read the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, as well as the constitution. It says very clearly: arms are the final judgements! Either anti up or leave the table, but don't just sit there polishing your gun pretending to be a defender. They are negotiating among themselves as to there offer to you.

No, the US is in a dreadful state of violence and mass death due to firearms and the Americans who wield them.

Ding ding ding

Exactly this^ I have been arguing that we shouldn't need sanctuary. We need a definitive case that can protect 2A, people don't realize that if some places can preserve the Amendment then that means that others have the right to restrict it. The law is clear already; shall not be infringed!

Equality in Missouri?! ROFLMAO, not if you're a woman, minority or of the LGBTQ flavor.

@@WitchingNumbers Two strawman arguments in one sentence. You're batting -.1000.

Hopefully California, then Oregon, then New Jersey, then Newy York, then Illinois.........THEN we can have our Country back to how it should be!!!

It d be nice if those crazy lib states like cal and my left then rest of us could establish law and order and reinstitute our values to our kids

I suggest, people who vote in MO get vote for different lawmakers, who will uphold our Constitution, all the way... just not part of it.

Good point. We need to see a backbone out of them though. As of late, their rulings have no teeth

Except that doesn’t make any sense because one is reaffirming the right to keep and bear arms. The other is completely stripping that right away which isn’t allowed. So no it can’t be “flipped” legally anyway. It doesn’t matter though, Illinois is illegally banning firearms to gauge compliance levels for the mass disarmament that’s coming in the next year or two.

It's your lawmakers, who are screwed up and filing this ridiculous stuff against our 2nd ammendent. Vote them all out of office that approves of this Supreme Court decission.

been dropped on your head a lot? per congress a violation of supremacy clause that protects the constitution is a mandatory removal office and mandatory fedprison sentence to wit:FDR JBJ WJC OH BUMMER TRUMP ARE FELLONS

They can’t screw us over because they don’t own us or tell us what to do. They just think they have power…

constitution is the law of the land...honestly i don't get the confusion about it by all the legal eagles

Our Supreme Court, doesn't want to take up our immigration laws... perhaps Shumer has threatened them, yet again.

Forceful removal from office under the 2nd Amendment is also an option!