Well, we’ll do it this way. Guys, breaking news. The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari to a big case that they’ve been kicking down the line for a couple months now. It’s the Snope v. Maryland assault weapon ban case. I tried to go live twice. YouTube wouldn’t let me go live with this. Don’t know why, but it’s absolutely frustrating. The amount of pressure they put on these types of channels, the news channels, to walk the line so that we don’t anger them. So I ask you, please, right now, do me a favor.

Like this video. Hit the like button. It takes a second. Subscribe to the channel if you haven’t already. If you are subscribed, double check it because they play games and then, you know, share this with other people. So the long and the short of it is the Supreme Court has denied the writ of certiorari for the Maryland assault weapon ban case. We missed it by one judge, okay? We need four justices to take up the case. The three that were in it with us, obviously were Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, along with Neil Gorsuch.

Neil Gorsuch was with us. An interesting dissent, which is when the judge, this is a, I don’t agree with the majority. We should have either taken this case up or not. Justice Thomas’s dissent is phenomenal. I’m going to read you a couple, just a couple quick paragraphs. But one of the interesting briefs was filed by Justice Kavanaugh. And Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh basically said, it’s not if we hear an assault weapon ban case and rule on it, it’s when. And he wants more circuits to weigh in on this. Don’t know why. There’s enough circuits.

I mean, one circuit that says the Second Circuit is being infringed is enough for me. But the Supreme Court isn’t what it used to be. They take half the cases and sometimes they have their head up their ass. So there’s a couple of things. First off, I think that they might be waiting for the Miller case out of California. That is a case that they already granted certiorari, vacated the lower courts ruling and remanded it back saying, fix this in light of Bruin. California hasn’t. They basically said, this is how it is.

So I think they’re waiting to get that back so they can slap their kid and punish them really, really good. But then I got this from Second Amendment Foundation. And what what their thought processes on this is that Kavanaugh’s statement in support of denial says essentially that he wants to let other circuits weigh in first, but that the issue will presumably address, but they will presumably address the issue soon in the next term or two. And then with him being the fourth vote, we would need for cert. Today’s outcome is less.

We’re not touching the issue and more. We’re not touching it yet, but soon. And Bill over there says, Harold in Illinois, which is the Seventh Circuit, is one we should be focusing on next. So Harold or Miller, I think once those get up there, maybe they’ll they’ll address it, which is I understand it. I don’t have to agree with it because I don’t run the Supreme Court. If I did, things would be a lot different. But I want to even in in Kavanaugh’s support for this dissent, I’ll read you a quick excerpt from his.

It says this case primarily concerns Maryland’s ban on the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle. Americans today possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR-15s and AR-15s are illegal in 41 of the 50 states, meaning that the states such as Maryland that prohibit AR-15s are something of an outlier. See Staples v. U.S. And he says, given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that a significant majority of the states allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR-15s are in common use by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller.

If so, then the Fourth Circuit would have erred by holding that Maryland’s ban on AR-15s complies with the Second Amendment. I’m going to take a quick moment here to thank the sponsor of the video, and that’s Attorneys on Retainer. If you are someone who carries a tool for self-defense in in defense of yourself or others, you need to carry a tool to defend yourself in court. Attorneys on Retainer will be there for you. They work in every single state. As long as you are doing the righteous thing and can raise in court that it was self-defense, they will cover you.

They don’t care if you are in a gun-free zone or you have an off-roster gun. They believe that you have the right to defend yourself. Check them out. Link is down below. Use my code to save some money. Save half off of your initiation fee for the individual or the family plan. Link is down below. Code is down below. Get Attorneys on Retainer and protect yourself. All right, so Kavanaugh is basically saying that, yeah, there’s 20 to 30 million of these things out there in 40 of the 50 states. 41 of the 50 states don’t have a problem with it, just you clowns.

So you have a problem under Heller, but he didn’t vote to take the case up, which is interesting. I mean, if you have the stones to say that, I guess that’s the cowardice, right? And I have the stones to take the case up, but then say something in retreat. And in Louisiana, we used to call that the crawfish. You know, you’re backing away from something. But he does say that, you know, under Heller, these things shouldn’t be banned. So maybe that Maryland’s, well, the Fourth Circuit aired in this case, but then there’s Justice Thomas.

Justice Thomas, Lord, protect Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. They’re getting older in age. And if it weren’t for them, we would be screwed. I mean, Justice Thomas dissented, obviously. And he said the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. When raising a Second Amendment challenge, an individual has an initial burden of showing that the Second Amendment’s plain text covers his conduct. Of course, that’s the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin case. Once a challenger makes that showing, the Constitution presumptively protects his conduct and the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that its regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

If the government fails to make that showing, the restriction must be deemed unconstitutional. Then he says, it is difficult to see how Maryland’s categorical prohibition on AR-15s passes the muster under this framework. To start, AR-15s are clearly arms under the Second Amendment’s plain text. In DCV Heller, we held that the term arms in this context covers all weapons of offense or armor of defense. Thus, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Because AR-15s are arms, the burden shifts to Maryland to show that banning AR-15s is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

But I am not aware of any historical regulation that could serve as a proper analog to Maryland’s ban. Maryland invokes the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. And under this tradition, however, a weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. That’s katana. Weapons in common use today for self-defense and other lawful purposes remain fully protected. And AR-15s appear to fit neatly within that category of protected arms. Tens of millions of Americans own AR-15s, and the overwhelming majority of them do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.

I’m done. Done. It’s frustrating. But that’s where we are. The United States Supreme Court has denied cert to the Snope v. Maryland. They’re waiting on another one or two to make it to them. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are being tyrannically abused by their oppressors in the states they live in. That is not acceptable. Shouldn’t be acceptable to a single justice on the Supreme Court. So this goes to show that even though we have a conservative makeup in the Supreme Court, that the liberals always point to the conservative makeup, we have to pack the court.

They might be conservative in nature, but they sure as hell don’t want to do the right thing when the shit hits the fan. Guys and gals, protect yourselves at all times. Protect yourselves with the arms of your choice. And get attorneys on retainer. Because if you ever have to protect yourself, especially in a state that tells you you can’t have this item because we think it’s scary, they’ll protect you. They’ll be there for you in court. And there’s not a lot of other agencies, groups, offerings, or programs out there that’ll do that.

Subscribe to the channel if you want to stay in the know about the Second Amendment, whether it’s good, bad, ugly, or indifferent today. It’s both ugly and indifferent and bad. But I wanted you to have it. And for some reason, YouTube wouldn’t let me go live. Twice. So it says a lot. Please support the channel. They’re stomping on it. Please support the channel. Like and subscribe. And I’ll see you on the next one. Take care. [tr:trw].

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