Finally, today marks a monumental step in the right direction for gun rights activists. Listen as Buck Sexton breaks down the Supreme Court’s decision:
Here is some of the TRANSCRIPT:
…..“to keep and bear arms.” That first part, keeping up of the arms, was dealt with pretty well in D.C. v. Heller. Remember that case from some years ago?
You had an individual licensed to have a gun for work but who lived in the District of Columbia and couldn’t even bring his firearm that he had at work all day home with him. So that’s crazy, right? But that was the law, and they would arrest you. D.C. was vicious about enforcing even the most minor infractions of firearms law. Unless you’re, you know, a gang member with a long history of drugs; then they’re always looking. And this is the thing you have to remind yourself about the libs.
If you’re somebody who has guns and is actually a danger to society, they don’t want to make an example of you. They want to go soft on you. This is what we’ve seen with the progressive prosecutors and criminal justice reform, as they call it. But if you’re guy who likes to go hunting on the weekends but you cross from Virginia into D.C. with two shotgun shells in your pocket that are 20-gauge meant for pheasants, guess what? Too bad. You’re on your own. They’re gonna lock you up. That’s their attitude, right?
Well, in this case the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen — Bruen is the superintendent of the New York State police — what we have here is the “bear arms” part of it finally coming into Supreme Court focus. And by 6-3 the proper cause requirement for getting a handgun permit, a firearm permit to have and carry a concealed pistol or revolver, the proper cause requirement is gone now. It is unconstitutional.
Now, what this means, in effect — remember D.C. v. Heller said, “You gotta be able to — if you’re a law-abiding citizen and you meet some very basic thresholds, you gotta be able to — buy a gun. You can’t just say, ‘You’re not allowed to have a gun, period,’ because the Second Amendment.” Well, now it’s can you get a concealed carry permit? Can you actually carry your weapon with you? And I know there’s gonna be the whole distinction between concealed carry and open carry and all this.
But just to be able to carry in any capacity in these states was not allowed unless you were special, unless you could prove, demonstrate a special need that is different from just people in general. And 6-3 decision here. Roberts did join the majority; so he may be a wimp, but he’s not a lunatic. 6-3 decision, took a sledgehammer to the anti-gun regime of so many of these states, or I should say the anti-bearing arms regime, right? ‘Cause you’re loud to own in New York, you’re allowed to own a firearm in California, but can you carry it anywhere?
Can you get a concealed carry permit? Now, in the state of New York, as I said, this is near and dear to me because I have not been able to. As an adult, I have not been able to enjoy Second Amendment rights in my home state, and it’s obscene. And one of my favorite parts of this decision, one of my favorite parts of the way they dismantle… I mean the libs, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, just pathetic stuff in their dissent. Honestly. “Oh, but there’s so much gun violence!” Wait, but there’s so much gun violence, you guys are banning guns in these states in every way you can but there’s still so much violence.
Almost like the only people who are gonna have guns in a no gun regime state like New York or California are the bad guys. Oh, that is what happens. That is what happens. New York bans and has for over a hundred years. I’ve known about the Sullivan law passed in 1911… By the way, I rarely would say this you to. If you are a Second Amendment enthusiast, though, reading this whole decision just because of the history that it goes into is fascinating, the history of weapons and concealed carry and the Old West and even goes back in the medieval period, goes back to English common law, seventeenth century, eighteenth century.
It’s fascinating history, of course, written by the constitutionalists, the conservatives on the court in their 6-3 slap down of this unconstitutional absurdity of you’re not allowed — a law-abiding American in these states was not allowed — to get a pistol to carry concealed for protection unless they were special, which basically meant unless you’re connected, unless you know how to work the system. And that’s why honestly you know who is the getting concealed carry permits in New York City specifically? Celebrities………
MORE form JUSTICE THOMAS:
…..I just want to read to you. THIS IS FROM THE OPINION, WRITTEN BY JUSTICE THOMAS, who is… I’ve said this before. If I can come up with a better, more specific phrase, but he is a national treasure. He really is. Justice Thomas is an amazing man who should be so much more… I mean, he’s celebrated by conservatives. He should be celebrated so much more nationally for what he is, being brilliant, having an incredible life story. But I digress.
“When we look to the latter half of the 17th century,” this decision says, respondents’ case only weakens. As in Heller, we consider this history ‘[b]etween the [Stuart] Restoration [in 1660] and the Glorious Revolution [in 1688]’ to be particularly instructive. During that time, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II ramped up efforts to disarm their political opponents, an experience that ‘caused Englishmen … to be jealous of their arms,’” and there’s other examples like this.
But this is the key point, friends. When you look at the history of these efforts to disarm the law-abiding, whether it’s in England, whether it’s in the medieval period, or it’s in the Revolutionary period in America, you look at these efforts to disarm, it’s always a means of the powerful asserting their control. Because they want to be able to do whatever they want to do. They don’t want anyone to be able to say, “No, you’re a tyrant. No, you’ve gone too far, and I can do something about it.”
And this really goes to the heart of the Second Amendment. When you read through the history, it’s fascinating. Those with the guns or the swords and the daggers and the halberds and those with those weapons, they don’t want others to be able to meet them with steel and gunpowder. They want to be the ones that get to call all the shots. They say, “You know what? We’re just gonna…” “No. You are not important. You don’t get a weapon,” and you could look all throughout history.
At different times, just the carrying of a sword unless you were connected to the nobility was something that could get you even executed. But then there are other times where there was an expectation that all gentlemen would be carrying. There are cultures, actually, where you have to carry a working blade. Cultures where carrying a knife for utility and for the protection of oneself and perhaps even one’s faith or one’s state, that was expected.
The libs ultimately… There’s the criminal justice component of this and the self-protection. But then there’s also the defense against tyranny aspect. And the left in this country, the anti-gun Democrat Party which now effectively is all the Democrat Party. There are some who will still pretend here and there to win some votes that they’re pro-Second Amendment. But the Democrat Party’s become the anti-gun party because they’re authoritarians.
You’ve seen this over the course of covid. You see this in your day-to-day lives. They want to control your speech. They want to control your property. They want to control every aspect of your life. They want to brainwash your children to gender identity theory. They want full and total control, and even if they may not have the eloquence and the constitutional understanding — which they certainly don’t — to put it in these terms, they do understand at some level that the individual ownership by citizens of this country, of firearms, is a personal act of rebellion against authoritarianism.
Or at least the possibility waiting in the wings, waiting on the sidelines to be that act of rebellion should it be called upon. And they hate that. They hate that because they know somewhere, deep down, hold on a second. We can’t just force them to do anything we want if we have full and total control of the apparatus. We can’t just start pulling people out of their homes and arresting them in front of their families because of climate denial. What do you mean? That would be a problem for us?
Ultimately, the true believers on the left, the real center of the Democrat Party finds that notion of an armed populace unacceptable, unacceptable to them, because they want… They’re always trying… They’re progressing, you see? Yeah, they’re always moving for the next thing, moving to the next issue. But their ultimate progression as progressives is to get to the utopia that is only possible when they are in total and complete control.
And so long as we have an armed population in this country that represents the final bulwark against that tyranny. And they know it; so, they hate it. And they also like all the virtue signaling, of course, from, if we could only pass more gun laws, we would stop all the gun violence out there. It’s not true, but people say that and they feel proud and brave and smart. If only we passed this gun law.
No matter how many times they fail, it feels good for them to say it. It feels good for the left to shout this out so they will keep doing it, they won’t look at the data. Doesn’t matter to them. They want you disarmed and double masked. That’s the point. That’s how they see this. And if we allow them, that’s where we’ll go. But today’s Supreme Court decision a huge victory, a huge move in the right direction.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
BUCK: I gave a shout-out to Justice Thomas, who a lot of us know he’s amazing, but deserves even more praise than he gets from those of us who are fans of his jurisprudence, his sharp mind, and his courage. In this decision, he wrote, “A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States.”
Again, this is a quote from the decision. “If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’ Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms — a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America,” and that’s the end of the quote there.
Just a reminder as well for everybody, it was the racist Democrat Party that worked so hard after the Civil War to make sure that black citizens of this country were disarmed. It was the racist Democrat Party during reconstruction and then leading all the way up into the era of the Ku Klux Klan that was doing everything it could to disarm our fellow Americans who were black. So there is a, as I said, long history of disarming in the name of oppression that stretches back for hundreds of years.
Not even just in America but hundreds of years. It stretches back all throughout history. The people in charge want you to shut up and do what you’re told. They get the guns; you get the orders. That’s the way they wanted it to be. Our Founding Fathers — the reason for the Second Amendment — realized, “No, that’s not gonna work. We’re not gonna have a free society, a truly free society of individuals with real liberty unless we change that dynamic.” So I think that’s essential to take away from all this.
