Why I Am Against The Bill To Codify Bruen And Heller

Help The Channel:

************************************************************
✊Support Independent Journalism:
Cash
App: $realjohncrump
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
***********************************************************

[garyK.ACP]

Simple: Legislatures DON'T grant RIGHTS. We don't NEED a law. We just need legislatures/legislators to STAY AWAY from anything related to bearable arms.

[midnightsailor]

I completely agree with you, both on the effect and the intent. It's the old "razzle dazzle" . And actually there is no need, the 2A spells it out very clearly. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !

[VibeGuy]

Unless there has been an additional amendment modifying the Constitution, changing the "Shall not be infringed" clause, then the Marbury v Madison precedent of "All laws repugnant to the Constitution are void! " is still current interpretation. And all gun control regulations are moot and illegitimate.

[hoosierplowboy]

They are obfuscating...it isTEXT, history and tradition. Call these Senators, people, they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes!

[crusiethmaximuss]

I reckon there is hidden gun control in the proposed bill?

[JA]

It just adds more " history" when there only needs to be constitutional reference and does nothing to hold those accountable that do not uphold the Constitution

[boldie]

In full agreement with you brother. AND we don't need to codify the 2A...

[steveparker]

It's all nothing more than virtue signaling. They all know this bill will go nowhere. They just need to stand strongly for the entire bill of rights.

[DocLarsen]

Good call! All you had to say was "Lindsey Graham" and I was automatically suspicious.

[GorillasGuns]

It's time for a whole new government! One that actually follows the constitution.

[jeffreyhowll]

It's already codified - the 2nd Amendment!

[lencomatt]

The names on the bill is enough to make me stay away from it

[JagdtygerA]

We don't need such a bill. we have the 2nd Amendment and it only needs to be followed

[RickheadWashington]

Yeah, our senators are not going to read this. I don't know how this will go. Hopefully the dems don't read it either.

[TTTac]

Time to put those Rinos on a List to be voted out

[WASHBURN]

They're all Rino's. All of them. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not true. All they do is make deals behind the scenes and they're not deals for us

[secondamendment]

I mean, why would we settle for Heller and Bruen? Both are still unconstitutional. The Second Amendment forbids the gvt from being able to restrict anything to do with our right to keep and bear arms. Even sales taxes on arms&munitions are unconstitutional, let alone "dangerous and unusual" or "sensitive places". And if they find any laws from 1791 that violate our rights...well. Just because it's long standing tyranny doesn't mean it's not tyranny. Shall not be infringed is absolute.

[benchrisner]

I knew they would try something like this.

[tobyhatch]

Words are important!
---leaving words out...DANGEROUS!

[DireAvenger]

No I’d definitely codify them. We don’t want what happened to Roe happen to Heller and Bruen

You misunderstand Bruen. Bruen fixated on two dates, 1791 and 1868. The idea is to understand the right in the scope of who ratified the amendments. This is why SCOTUS said laws from the early 1900s don’t apply here. The NFA is unlikely to get shot down, but it isn’t within the realm of “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” 1934 was far later than 1868