I'm not the biggest advocate for guns, since all I hear about are school shootings and I think most home intruders can effectively be deterred with a machete instead of a firearm.

One of the biggest arguments I hear about 2A is that it helps preserve rights, but I see loads of countries without a 2A equivalent and they seem to be living as free (or unfree, however you see it) as we do here, but without guns.

I've seen enough freedom outside the US and enough injustices/invasions of freedom here to just think that 2A doesn't really do much except drive up homicide rates, serve as a wedge issue, and allow some adults to enjoy a dangerous hobby. Am I missing something?

Thousands scanned by computer, 113 unarmed people stopped and forcefully searched, yet not a single gun found in this experiment.

AI-powered weapons scanners used in NYC subway found zero guns in one-month test found zero guns in one-month test

NEW YORK (AP) — A pilot program testing AI-powered weapons scanners inside some New York City subway stations this summer did not detect any passengers with firearms — but falsely alerted more than 100 times, according to newly released police data.

By The Associated Press October 24, 20242:28 pm

NEW YORK (AP) — A pilot program testing AI-powered weapons scanners inside some New York City subway stations this summer did not detect any passengers with firearms — but falsely alerted more than 100 times, according to newly released police data.

Through nearly 3,000 searches, the scanners turned up more than 118 false positives as well as 12 knives, police said, though they declined to say whether the positive hits referred to illegal blades or tools, such as pocket knives, that are allowed in the transit system.

https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/local/ai-powered-weapons-scanners-in-subway-found-zero-guns

Unfortunately I already bought an annual policy with them by the time I realized, but the insurance company "Lemonade" donates money to March for Our lives. Specifically they sponsored 7 activists to "speak out against gun violence" last year which we all know just means advocating for more gun restrictions.

This is part of their program where they donate some of your unclaimed money to an organization of your choice.

I chose the SPCA and there's a lot of other choices aside from MFOL, but having them as an option tells me Lemonade is against gun ownership and I think not giving your money to anti gun companies when you have other options is important to do if you value your rights.

Anyways, I'll be going with a different company next time I need renters insurance.

EDIT: Thank you all for the insight and other items/viewpoints to consider. This discussion has been very helpful.

How would you counter the argument that "to keep and bear arms" only applies to military situations? Especially after reading through the information in the link below?

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/corpus-linguistics-public-meaning-and-the-second-amendment

In his opinion in Heller, Justice Scalia argued that the plain meaning of bear arms is simply, ‘carry a weapon’:

Although [bear arms] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18****^(th) century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

That interpretation contradicts the long-held understanding that bear arms has always been a military term, as we see when Judge Nathan Green wrote in Aymette v. State (1840), an early concealed-carry case in Tennessee,

A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

Green was not alone in that opinion. A 2007 search by historian Saul Cornell found over 100 examples of bear arms in founding-era texts, with ninety-six percent having a military context, corpus evidence that the Heller majority shrugged off.

The following exchange during oral arguments in Heller also demonstrates that bear arms is a military idiom, not a synonym for ‘carry a gun.’ Solicitor General Paul Clement claimed that bear arms means “to carry them outside the home.” Justice Souter asked him, “But wait a minute. You’re not saying that if somebody goes hunting deer he is bearing arms, or are you?” Clement replied, “I would say that and so would Madison and so would Jefferson.” But Souter wasn’t convinced: “In the eighteenth century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded, no, that is not the way they talk: “I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” Souter didn’t need to point out that bear arms appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

https://youtu.be/hnHAz56YNns
TL;DW NAGR rep goes and speaks to the UN at a conference aimed at basically banning small arms everywhere. Solid statement and a peek into how things work on the world stage.

For those not aware, Vem is the guy wrongfully accused in California of being the 3rd Trump shooter. The whole idea of him being an assassin has already fallen apart. The reality is, he's a Trump supporter and a newbie gun owner from Nevada who didn't understand how catastrophically different California law is, rolled into the parking lot with two loaded guns in the trunk and "declared them" to cops at the gate. Sigh.

The reports if "fake IDs" and multiple passports are BS. He's now back home in Nevada on a $5k bond for illegal CCW and having a mag bigger than 10 rounds, and possibly something on the shotty. Not sure on that yet.

The following is in his hands:

Vem was busted for "illegal carry" of a Glock handgun with a magazine bigger than 10 rounds. There was a second gun in the trunk as well, apparently a shotgun, and depending on it's configuration it might classify as an "assault weapon" of some sort.

This memo outlines possible defenses that can be assembled into a motion to dismiss. Overall the defenses are strongest in regard to the illegal carry without a CCW permit bust so we're going to deal with that first. Also, beating that charge opens up a 4th amendment unreasonable search claim on anything else, because if Vem had presented a California CCW permit to the officers that he declared his goodies to, there would have been no need to go into the trunk.

What WON'T work: FOPA86. The federal Firearms Owners Protection Act covers interstate travelers passing through a "heavy gun control state" so long as a gun is legal in the point of origin and destination states. Vem was running from NV to CA and back, and FOPA86 only protects guns in transit that are locked up and unloaded. That's ok though, as we'll see.

Illegal CCW charge.

We first need to understand how California's carry permit system worked as of the moment of his arrest.

Under the laws on permit issuance, ONLY California residents can apply for California's concealed weapons permits, which are good statewide. California also doesn't recognize the validity of a permit from any other state within California's borders.

Thus, Vem was completely statutorily barred from any possibility of a carry permit. That means you don't have to argue that he should have applied for a Cali CCW to have standing to complain about this, because any application would be statutorily futile.

To understand how serious this is, it's as if somebody Latino walked into a department of motor vehicles in any state and saw a large sign saying "no Mexican applicants allowed, go back where you came from". Anybody who is at all brownish would not be required to apply for the license before suing. All they would need to do is photograph the sign, gather a couple of horrified witnesses and head to court...or more seriously, prove this was going on and drive in the meantime!

That is basically Vem's situation, except it's about the 2nd Amendment. Let's break down his claims.

1. Under a series of four US Supreme Court decisions, a state cannot discriminate against any visiting resident of another state in any area of law or policy. The oldest of these cases is Ward v Maryland 1870, the newest is Saenz v Roe 1999. The two in the middle are similar to those. Saenz is particularly important because it orders lower courts to take a specific action if they identify such discrimination: APPLY STRICT SCRUTINY. Vem, you likely don't know just how critical "strict scrutiny" is, but any lawyer will! Basically, it is the strongest standard of review when a constitutional right is being violated - in this case, the right to be free of cross-border discrimination. One thing a court MUST do in a strict scrutiny analysis is ask if there's any lesser restriction available that solves the governmental need, and the fact that 30 states have given up on permits altogether then matters. Bigtime. Capische? >>This is one of your two strongest defenses.<<

2. The Rahimi Gambit. Earlier this year the US Supreme Court issued a final decision in US v Rahimi. Mr. Rahimi had been disarmed by court order based on his violent misconduct and the US Supreme Court decided that was ok on an 8-1 vote. However, they made it quite clear that this disarmament was only valid because of his violent misdeeds which they spelled out in detail across three horrifying pages! Basically, the only reason Mr. Rahimi hasn't been convicted of murder is because he's a lousy shot.

However, California has statutorily disarmed Vem for the crime(?) of being from Nevada. That's insane.

Until August 6th 2024, New York had the same form of permit discrimination as California. This year NY was sued over this in the Higbie/GOA case, and NY folded by opening up the New York City permit to all applicants from anywhere in the US. In the NYPD memo on that date announcing this, NY didn't admit a lawsuit triggered this but claimed that "recent Supreme Court developments" made it necessary >>including Rahimi<<:

https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Emergency-Gun-License-Rules-8.8.24.pdf

This isn't "binding precedent" in a California court, but it's definitely persuasive.

3. "Bruen THT": under the Bruen decision, a gun control law has to comply with the "text, history and tradition" of the 2nd Amendment. The very idea of barring somebody from arms because "y'all ain't from around here" is completely alien to the US legal landscape of 1776-1861. You can hang your hat on that.

Between 1865 and 1868 we see laws requiring carry permits pop up in former slave states (whether Confederate or not) that were specific to those folks with high melanin content and then once the 14th Amendment passed in 1868, those laws changed to race-neutral language but racist as hell enforcement due to the discretionary nature of the permit process. I'll list a couple of peer reviewed articles to get you up to speed but all you really need to know is, this class of law is exactly what was struck down as unconstitutional in 2022 in the Bruen decision so the prosecution will have a hard time using this post-1868 crap to support the "history and tradition" legs of a THT analysis.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/racistroots.htm

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP07.pdf

In a THT challenge, you or your lawyer are asking the prosecution to "put up or shut up" - produce historical legal evidence that this form of gun control being applied to you, as it applies to you as an NV resident is proper.

NOTE: you need to do an "as applied" challenge to the CCW rules, not a "facial" challenge.

4. Now it gets fun. You see, a gun rights group out of Southern California has already sued over this discrimination - AND WON. Check this out:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.907347/gov.uscourts.cacd.907347.52.0.pdf

Ain't that sweet?

It gets better. As of the moment of the arrest of Vem, THIS HASN'T YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED! Oops! There's been negotiations between CRPA (law offices of Chuck Michel) and the California DOJ. Draft language has been published regarding how somebody from Nevada or wherever can apply for a Cali CCW. As of this writing and the time of the arrest, this draft hasn't been signed by the federal judge!!! I'm connected enough to know if it had gone live.

Also note that as with New York, this reform ending cross-border discrimination is happening faster than the legislature can revise the actual law on who can apply and how. Unconstitutional laws are no good even when they're still on the books.

So we have hard proof that Vem was unconstitutionality denied access to a California CCW. This makes busting him for not having one sketchier than a kindergarten art class.

One more thing: the judge's order above was not dependent on the Rahimi argument. That's because the motion that caused that order happened before the Rahimi decision was released. There's more that's going to go on in that case and Vem, for God's sake have your lawyer call Chuck Michel's office:

https://michellawyers.com - ask for Kostas Moros, I think he's the real brains behind this case. Get whatever documentation you can straight from him, including the exact progress of negotiations with Cal-DOJ at the moment of Vem's arrest.

End of part one. Part two, we'll figure out what to do about any "Assault Weapon" or mag capacity limit charges. But again, using the above to beat up the concealed carry charge might strongly bolster the 4th Amendment argument: if you had had a California CCW they might never have gone into the trunk legally.

You can also ask me more details about any of this, or have your lawyer do so.

Jim Simpson, formerly Jim March (Phone and email provided)

Ken Ballew raid (1971) Jerry Drasen (1988) John Lawmaster ATF raid in Tulsa (1991) Aron S. Lipman (1992) William Fleming (1994) Harry and Terry Lamplugh May 25, 1994 raid

I can't find any info on some of them outside of Unintended Consequences by John Ross, I'm surprised I haven't seen any videos anywhere going over these cases.

"The Loudoun County Public Schools student was arrested in May 2023 for allegedly being in possession of a stolen handgun with ammunition before school"

Was Banning Handguns in the UK & Canada the biggest mistake ever made?

View Poll