Playing 3D Chess with the 2nd Amendment and Supreme Court

In this episode, we discuss  how some might be playing 3D chess with the 2nd Amendment and Supreme Court following the Bruen decision.

Four Boxes Diner
Armed Attorneys
Please consider donating to these campaigns.
Kari Lake - Arizona Governor
Blake Masters  - Us Senate
Kelly Tshibaka - US Senate
Sarah Palin - US Congress
Lauren Boebert -US Congress
Matt Gaetz - US Congress
Herschel Walker - US Senate
Marjorie Taylor Greene
JD Vance - US Senate


Fountain Podcast App

Follow twitter @JeffDowdle
Follow me on Truth Social - @JeffDowdle

Convention of States Project
Presearch search engine sign up.
Brave Browser

Find our Representative
Join me on Parler Social Media! https://par.pw/download/
@jefftdowdle
email me at jeff@livetoshoot.com
Follow me on Gettr
Follow me on Telegram
subscribe to my newsletter
Check out our new apparel
Rumble
Follow me on MeWe
Follow me on Gab
Follow me on Clouthub

Transcript

0:15

Well, welcome to Live Shoot podcast. My name is Jeff Dolan. I've been a licensed farm dealer for the last 15 years. In this podcast, we talk about all things related to the Second Amendment, as well as anything that might be going on in my personal life or other news going on in the country. So welcome, welcome, welcome, and I am either late on getting this podcast out or I am early, one of the two at the beginning of the year. I made a commitment that I wasn't gonna be as anal or obsessive about trying to get a podcast out every week, and then I would just kind of go with the flow. And if I was tired or didn't feel like doing it, I wasn't gonna do it. My one gonna be worried about it. So I tried that last week. And true to my nature, I. I I, I stressed over the fact that I hadn't put a podcast out, and I am one of these that once I start something, it is very hard for me to quit. I'm excessively loyal. I'm quitting jobs. I've been my current job for 15. Years. The job before that, I was there for 12, married 23 years, you know, which is a good thing. I'm not saying that it's bad or anything like that. But once I, I've been, I run almost every day. I can't miss a day of running seven days a week. I don't know when the last time I was, I missed a day. And what I do caused me angst. I, my Fitbit drives me crazy, trying to get my number of steps on, on, on Well, hard for me to. Stop something. Once I start, I've a, i I come from a very addictive personality, and, and that's why certain things, certain vices, I have to make sure I avoid because I can fall down a very dark trap, I'm afraid so welcome, welcome, welcome. I wanna bring and talk about a title this playing 3D chess with the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court. And the reason so is because there's a couple decisions court cases out there, or non court cases that have been decided that one. What's going on around'em may have some people scratching their head and there's nothing definitive about this but, you know, strictly my opinion and those opinions of the others about what might be going on, and all this revolves around the brewing decision and how it has just turned. Second Amendment court cases, upside down people are refiling Cases that were previously denied because of the now the Bing decision new ones are being filed now because of the Bing decision, on and on and on. And it's just gonna be an ultimately a positive thing as these dominoes keep falling. But the first case I wanna talk about is relates to the under 21. Individuals out there and their right to keep and bear arms. So as we talked about earlier, the Texas is constitutional carry and the constitutional carry said no, but you had to reach from 21. And above and court case was filed federal judge in Fort Worth said that that was against the Bruin decision unconstitutional. And those between 18 and 21 could constitutionally carry legally because of history and tradition. There was no hist that it was back in the time of the second Amendment under 21, were, had to carry and, and possess arms. So now that decision has been appealed by Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas to the Fifth Circuit. Now, why is Ken Paxton, who is very pro Second Amendment appealing what would seem to be a very pro Second Amendment decision? Well, this is my opinion and the opinion of others in that Ken Paxton is playing 3d. And what he is attempting to do is that if he gets the set Fifth Circuit to affirm the lower court's decision. Now this decision impacts the entire Fifth Circuit. And I don't know who all that. That's Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and a few other states. And then what people anticipate is that Ken Paxton will then appeal this to the Supreme Court. Knowing or hoping that the Supreme Court will affirm lower court's decisions, thus making it basically unconstitutional across the United States to deny anybody un between the ages of 18 and 21 the right to possess, keep, and bear arms, because with the Bruin decision and the way it's been done, It, it seems to be very clear that based on what was going on at the time, that under 18 to 21 year olds were in the minds of the writers of the Second Amendment and that they were not being Excluded. There were other provisions within the Constitution where the writers specifically called out age requirements. They did not around the Second Amendment. And then also in 1792 our 17, yeah 1792, the militia act was put into place specifically calling out that those between the 18 and 21 had to be prepared with arms and am. To serve in the militia. So it seems to be that if we can get this all the way up to the Second Amendment, and I think that's what Ken Paxton's trying to do with his appeals, that this will then cover the entire country, including California. New York, Massachusetts, all those wonderful states. So it looks like Ken Paxton is trying to think out of the box on how to push forward some of these Second Amendment cases. That's one case. The other instance is some news that had come down recently where the Supreme Court has denied to hear two cases as it relates to bump stocks and on the services. Seems to be negative. Why that these were. Bump stocks are the devices that you can place on the, the end of a, the, of a AR 15 that gives it this appearance of being fully auto and that it accelerates the amount of the rate of fire that that gun can Fire. And prior to the Las Vegas shooting, everybody was fine with these devices. There, there wasn't a great proliferation of'em out there. And then the Trump ATF came in and classified that these were illegal because they were classified them as machine gun and. This was actually just in response to a tragedy and had nothing to do with the Second Amendment or anything like this. Well, two cases went up Supreme Court and they have denied hearing them. Not, doesn't sound good on service, but listening to some others who are far wiser in, in these ways. It looks like, again, maybe the second, the Supreme Court in itself is playing 3D chess and on a side. If you're not watching the four Boxes Diner, YouTube's channel are the Armed Attorneys YouTube channel. I'll put them in the link to the show. They're awesome. They explain these things very clearly and I'm taking information from them and trying to just dumb it down even further and explain it. But they go into great detail about this, these types of things, and if you want some more clarity, you can go listen and they cover a lot of other issues, but what the theory. Is that the Supreme Court is looking down the future and trying to anticipate some other cases that might be coming along that ultimately maybe we not only will invalidate this bump the bump stock laws, but could potentially invalidate the NFA and or the ATF and what that is pertaining to. Is one of the things called the Chevron doctrine, which I learned about which man was put into place. That said, if a law is put into place that's ambiguous in terms of its implementation, an the agency that's supposed to implement it. Can interpret and basically create its own laws, which is what the ATF has done here around the bump stocks. And the courts have always deferred to that. There's some laws, some court cases that are coming down that the, I believe the Supreme Court might be, or the others believe that Supreme Court is looking at, and they don't want to hear this. These cases, they wanna wait for these cases to come along to us where they can invalidate the Chevron doctrine. And. So that is part of the thinking around that, which would then allow the bump stock to be reviewed and potentially maybe even just eliminate the NFA entirely, which if you look at the nfa. It is unconstitutional based on history and tradition. So the Bruin Act has turned Bruin decisions turn things up, down, upside down. People are starting to really think outside the box in terms of ways to use existing or pending court cases to fur further utilize the Bruin to eliminate all these restrictions and get us back to what the true intent of the Second Amendment was. Is. We shall not have our rights infringed in that we have the right to keep and bear arms and those shall not be infringed. So real quick some what doesn't look like good news on the surface could potentially turn out to be very good news down the road. We just have to be patient and let these things play out. I am going to start urging everybody to support candidates, get the word out. Elections are just 30 some odd days out and. There are good things happening, but we've got to get these, some Republican governors in place like Carrie Lake and Doug Mao in Phil, in Pennsylvania. Get them in place. We need to get Blake Masters and JD Vance and some of the other senators in place, we've got to get a majority so that we can prevent further laws. We can start putting controls around these outta control agencies and get the government start taking the government back. So that is my plea to you. Thank you for listening and have a great week.