Chauchat
Active Member
I was just listening to Langley Outdoors and he through this up on the screen from the NM AG Raul Torrez.
Seven minute into it but the watch the whole video.
The paradigm shift is this:
'... Second, simply rebranding gun violence as a "public health emergency" will not satisfy the heightened judicial standard for justifying the blanket prohibition against any citizen, regardless of criminal conduct or intent, from carrying a firearm for personal protection. '
I've been saying for years that convicted criminals once they served their time are free to exercise their right to bear arms for their self defence. Some where along the line the country was brain washed into the idea of permanent punishment. The Feds are the worst. Oh you could have been sentenced to more than a year according to the statute but you were only given nine months, well you are a felon and lose your right to self defence with a firearm.
I recall a case in Colorado about thirty some years ago a paralyzed from the waist down felon put down a cop busting through his front door. He was charged a felon with a gun. He was acquitted in court because the cop did not announce his self and the jury held he had a right to defend hisself. A rarity granted but this is what Torrez just said.
This is in congruence with Bruen. There is no historical instance where the founders and framers denied convicted their right to carry guns for protection or food.
Of course this was all premised on a moral society and you took the risk of having your brains blown out if you committed a new crime against others. Which is why everyone needs to be carrying in what ever fashion they see fit on a daily basis. An armed society is a polite society.
Seven minute into it but the watch the whole video.
The paradigm shift is this:
'... Second, simply rebranding gun violence as a "public health emergency" will not satisfy the heightened judicial standard for justifying the blanket prohibition against any citizen, regardless of criminal conduct or intent, from carrying a firearm for personal protection. '
I've been saying for years that convicted criminals once they served their time are free to exercise their right to bear arms for their self defence. Some where along the line the country was brain washed into the idea of permanent punishment. The Feds are the worst. Oh you could have been sentenced to more than a year according to the statute but you were only given nine months, well you are a felon and lose your right to self defence with a firearm.
I recall a case in Colorado about thirty some years ago a paralyzed from the waist down felon put down a cop busting through his front door. He was charged a felon with a gun. He was acquitted in court because the cop did not announce his self and the jury held he had a right to defend hisself. A rarity granted but this is what Torrez just said.
This is in congruence with Bruen. There is no historical instance where the founders and framers denied convicted their right to carry guns for protection or food.
Of course this was all premised on a moral society and you took the risk of having your brains blown out if you committed a new crime against others. Which is why everyone needs to be carrying in what ever fashion they see fit on a daily basis. An armed society is a polite society.
