9th Circuit Declares "Hi-Cap" Mag Ban Unconstitutional! (Why I Partly Disagree)
15K views

TheYankeeMarshal
338K subscribers

Timeshare Exit Cancel Services
AD
infoinsider.net

Up next
dont_use_this


38:13
Lenny assembles our new Mini5!
GlockStore
5.6K views
New

12:47
What Will Happen to GUN Rights if Dems/Biden Win Election?!?
TheYankeeMarshal
27K views

10:21
I Was WRONG About Wayne LaPierre
TheYankeeMarshal
77K views

13:54
9th Circuit Strikes Down California Magazine Ban!
GunGuyTV
11K views
New

52:50
The Fact-Free Lockdown Hysteria | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
misesmedia
381K views

43:30
What's next with the California ammo ban & the 9th circuit? - Interview with Sam Paredes of GOC
GunGuyTV
17K views

9:46
Jay Leno's Lifestyle ★ 2020
Lifestyle & Net Worth
Recommended for you

17:05
Gun Gripes #187: "California Magazine Ban Lifted?"
Iraqveteran8888
Recommended for you

7:51
FIRST TIME HEARING Phil Collins - In the Air Tonight REACTION
TwinsthenewTrend
Recommended for you

11:20
Tucker: America was a very different country 7 months ago
Fox News
1.6M views

13:38
The 9Barista Espresso Machine Review
James Hoffmann
Recommended for you

16:46
Ammo Shortage Insights
MarksmanTV
13K views
New

Comments • 286

Add a public comment...

Tyler Morrison
This should never have been an issue to begin with. It's a shame we should have to get excited about what should have never been. Still good news, as we never want to become, for example, Canada, Jr.

8 hours ago
5


John Smith
Are they just going to drag their feet with this too, like they did with the open carry being constitutional?

9 hours ago
5


Ruben Mentaberry
Now is time for the CA roster to go away too.

9 hours ago
55
7


Steven Prime
Least there be ANY doubts.. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.

Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”

Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”