Every now and then, I bring you guys a lawsuit, a case that will make you go, hmm. Because while it’s a violation of our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment and a violation of several major decisions by the Supreme Court, what I’m going to tell you doesn’t really apply to a law abiding citizen. So I want you to stay, stand by, hear this out, and then at the end, I want you to tell me what you think about this scenario. A federal judge in Boston has rejected an alleged drug dealers argument that he had a second amendment right to possess two semi automatic handguns for the purpose of protecting his stash of cocaine and fentanyl.

Yup, yup. Before I dive too down, too far down this rabbit hole, guys and gals, blackout coffee. We’re having a big sale to support these three groups. Gun owners of America, Second Amendment foundation, firearms policy coalition. They are the ones who bring a lot of cases on our behalf that we have a working relationship with. A blackout coffee. For every item that you buy of their product line, we send $2 right back to them to fight for the second amendment. So how do you get to take advantage of the sale? Use code FREedom 25 at blackoutcoffee.com gng.

It won’t last long. It’s our way of quickly raising some money for these folks. Because you get it for sale price. We still do our full donation. We get them some money, and that’s our goal every month. We donate right back to them. Blackoutcoffee.com g and g code FReedom 25 won’t last long. Jump on it. Let’s go to this case out of Boston, because this is one of those ones where you don’t have a solid defendant that perhaps brings a violation of federal law. That’ll bring down a federal law. Hear me out. A grand jury indicted defendant Malik Parsons on federal charges of conspiracy, distribute and possession with the intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl and 500 grams or more of cocaine, possession with the intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl and 50 grams or more of cocaine, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number and possession of a firearm and furtherance of drug trafficking activity in violation of 18 U.

S. C. 924 c. Okay, so he had allegedly had a lot of fentanyl and a lot of cocaine that he was selling. Now, according to the prosecution and some of the documents that I read, Parsons trafficked narcotics out of an apartment in Mansfield, Massachusetts. During an August of 2021 search of the apartment, law enforcement allegedly discovered large quantities of cocaine, cocaine base, and two semi automatic handguns, one of which had the serial number obliterated. Now, the defendant moved to dismiss the charge for possession of a firearm and furtherance of drug trafficking activity. And he said that the application of 18 U.

S. C. 924 c. In his case violated his right of self defense under the Second Amendment. Hmm. Now, in the motion to dismiss, his attorney, Alyssa Hackett, she wrote this quote, the defendant challenges the constitutionality of 924 C as applied to him where he is charged under a theory that the gun was possessed inside a location where drugs were stored as self defense to avoid a drug robbery. His attorney also said that Bruin discarded the means ends test adopted by federal courts after the 2008 DC versus Heller decision. And that’s what. That’s the balancing test that courts were doing up until Bruin established the text history and tradition test that we are all well aware of now, right? So in order for a challenged law to be to pass constitutional muster, has to pass text history and traditional.

Now, that approach, according to the attorney, requires the courts to first assess whether the challenge law is covered by the Second Amendment’s text possession of a firearm. It is. So. Now they must decide whether that law is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. And it’s not. So, according to attorney Hackett, 924 C fails the Bruin test as applied to her client’s alleged conduct. And she’s right. Attorney Hackett also wrote, while the defendant might properly be prosecuted for actively using a gun in the drug trade, keeping a gun in the event of armed confrontation is precisely the conduct the Second Amendment protects.

And she’s right again. Now, the judge’s name is Nathaniel M. Gorton. Judge took no issue with the. With her recitation of the Bruin standard and noted that Bruin has begun a litany of challenges to federal criminal laws involving firearms. And the judge also noted that while some of those challenges have been successful, federal courts have uniformly rejected post Bruin challenges to 924 C. I think that’s mostly because they don’t want their little federal gun control hierarchy to crumble. Now, the judge also explained that Bruin hadn’t overturned the principle expressed by the Supreme Court in Heller, that, quote, the core Second Amendment right protects bearing arms for lawful purpose, end quote.

And then the judge concluded that Parsons constitutional challenge failed on that basis, saying, for the government to prove that Parsons violated section 924 C, it must demonstrate that he possessed a firearm to promote illicit activity. He claims that the charge conduct encompasses self defense against robbery. But allegations that a firearm was possessed for the indisputably unlawful purpose of defending a stash of narcotics and ill gotten proceeds vitiates any constitutionally cognizable assertion of self defense. So the judge is saying that there is no right to bear arms for the protection of a stash of illegal narcotics, to wit, fentanyl and cocaine.

But that doesn’t pass the Bruin test, guys and gals. So I’m going to turn this over to you, and I’m going to say that, similar to my coverage in the Rahimi case, which we’ll hear the court’s decision soon, it’s going to come next month, in June. We’re going to get it. And that case was, does somebody under a domestic violence, a civil domestic violence restraining order, do they lose their second amendment right? And in that case, Rahimi was a terrible person. By all means. By everything that’s he was. He was charged with doing or convicted of doing, he was not a good dude.

This is another case where sometimes not the best candidates for destroying federal laws brings the case. Is the second amendment for everybody? Do you only have a second amendment right if people agree with what you’re using it for? Does he have the right to have a gun in his apartment for his own self defense? Well, Heller would say so. Bruin would say so. Now, does the narcotics law, 924 C, does that pass the Bruin test? Was it there in this tech text of the second amendment? No. Was it there in the history and tradition of firearm regulation when the second amendment was adopted in 1791? No.

But were people dealing in fentanyl and cocaine is going to be a lot of people’s response. The answer to that is no as well. So I’m turning it to you. What do you guys and gals think of this? Interesting. I want to see what you. You think. I want to see both sides of the aisle, because this is one of those cases, I think that we could have the destruction of a federal gun control law, and it could be coming from somebody who’s not the best, uh, candidate. Now, I’m assuming that they’ll appeal. That’s. That’s my assumption in bringing this to you.

So we’ll see. Guys and gals, hope you have a phenomenal day. Don’t forget to say I love you to your loved ones. You never know when you’re going to get a second chance. Check out blackout coffee. God bless, y’all. Take care..

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.