California Assault Weapon Ban Unconstitutional and The ATF Creating Millions of Felons

In this episode we discuss the ruling that the California Assault Weapon Ban is Unconstitutional and  the DOJ proposed rule on pistol braces and red flag laws. 
Links mentioned.
Judge Benitez ruling on the California Assault Weapon Ban
Proposed Rule on Pistol Braces
ATF Worksheet 4999
Make a comment on pistol brace rule
Stop Universal Background Checks

Find our Representative
Join me on Parler Social Media! https://par.pw/download/
@jefftdowdle
email me at jeff@livetoshoot.com
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

Copy Transcript Copied

0:16

Welcome to the live to cheap podcast. My name is Jeff and I have been a licensed firearm dealers for the last 14 years. And this podcast, we talk about all things related to the second amendment, as well as my thought of sports story or something going on in my personal life. So welcome. Welcome. Welcome. Today is Friday. You may actually probably be getting this podcast out on Saturday. I'm recording it right now, but I don't know if I'm going to be able to get it. Edited and uploaded in time. We are leaving this morning, me and my youngest to a baseball tournament. And it is in Kilgore, Texas, which is a, it's going to be a two hour drive and have two games today. And then we will drive back. And then tomorrow night we have a game and. Just outside of Tyler, which is still another two hours and then we drive back and then on Sunday we have another game and in Tyler, so it's a busy, busy weekend. A lot of times we'll stay over in a hotel room, but the timing of schedule of the way the games are, and the fact that it's just a two it's a two hour drive doesn't mean make sense. We would be spending a lot of time just sitting in a hotel room. So we can drive. If I get tired, he he's got his permit so he can drive as well. So it's all good. But I said it's kind of busy and trying to get it recorded today. And then we will hopefully get it edited and uploaded tomorrow morning before we head out for our other games. So w a lot of things going on this week in the, in the second amendment, and as a lot of people have probably heard a big news came out of California last week, where a judge, Roger Benitez, and we've had him before. He is Come down with some some, some pretty interesting rulings valley, California. He ruled that the assault weapon ban of Ken California is unconstitutional and he wrote a 94 page decision on it. And. He, he really lays out the very well argued argument for not banning assault weapons, quote unquote, assault weapons based on all the arguments that the, the left has and the fact that it's unconstitutional and that they're protected by the second amendment. So I'm going to a few of the points that he made in his ruling are. Well, first thing he addressed is that they are, they are 15 is a modern sporting rifle and it is protected by the second amendment. And based on the Heller decision that said that it had a test in the Heller decision about if something's in common use that it is. Protected. And he makes that argument and point that out, but there are more, more AR 15 style rifles out there than there are Ford F-150 trucks. And so he makes it clear that they are definitely in common. Use another argument against the AR 15 style rifle is that they are killing machines. They're deadly accurate, and he again makes The argument that accuracy does not make something unlawful. In fact, it's a key component for the legal use of the firearms, a key component in their legal use. And in regards to hunting self-defense competition, shooting those types of things, and that he also states that he. You, you don't want it's illogical to base it on accuracy. You'd wouldn't want a firearm to be inaccurate and that makes them more dangerous. In fact another argument that the left makes and, and they made in this case is that there's other alternatives for self-defense. You don't need an AR 15, you don't need an assault rifle, a weapon of war to Protect you because you got other defenses, another solution. You can use a shotgun. You can use a baseball bat if you, if you so desire. And again, he says having alternatives such as pistols and shotguns. The limiting filter is does not justify a ban because there is no limit on it that you can continue to band and band and band where you finally only have is a single shot there and you're left or even worse, a baseball bat. Another argument that they make is that it can fire rapidly in the style of, of the M 16. And again, he corrects them and explains that the, the while the AR 15 and M 16 look like they are not the same and that the M 16 has a rapid fire and a semi-automatic selection, the AR AR 15 can only fire semi-automatic and it is not a rapidly firing weapon. And then he makes the, this is one of the things that arguments that he also makes us at features like a folding stock, a retractable stock, bayonet lug do not turn the AR 15 into a more lethal firearm and thus make it illegal. And then. This argument here, and this is the last one month talking about is one that I've not heard before. And it is, it is so important. And to, to echo out there and he refers to a heckler's veto. And by that, he says that just because. If you, you, you, you go on the premise that the firearms are used by criminals and in mass shootings and stuff, just because they're used for illegal purposes does not make them unconstitutional or less. They should be banned if it compares it to a heckler's veto that if if somebody is using free speech to do unlawful acts, You have to deal with the unlawful acts or doing not with the fact that they're utilizing free speech and banning free speech. So just because somebody is doing something illegal with something, again, you know, driving drunk, if You're driving drunk people don't go and take away the ban on the cars. They deal with the illegal action. Right. And that putting that then that essentially allows the criminals to dictate what can be legal and what can't be illegal by what they utilize. I really liked that argument. So I'll link to his his ruling in my notes and you can go out there and read it. There's a lot of great arguments in it. Second thing that came up this week was that the department of justice in response to president Biden's requests for some proposed rules on how to eliminate or reduce AR 15 south pistols. Issued their pros rule on pistol braces, and that came out today. And in fact, the comment period is already opened. So I will put a link in my notes too, as well as what the worry go out and make comments it's important to go out and make comments. I just checked on the comments being made for the proposed rule on the definitions of frames and receivers. And it's over 50,000 comments right now. So good job everybody. I mean, we. God, I get those comments. I didn't go through all of them, but they are definitely against this ruling and letting our voices be heard now in this proposal. Again, pharma, Justin ATF, they're staying true to form. They are presenting something that is vague and it's convoluted in terms of how to interpret, but what is a pistol brace and a short bell rifle? So the first thing I do just as they did with the framework receiver, they've got changed some definitions to fit what they want. So they are adding an additional sentence to clarify the term of a rifle to include any weapon. With a rifle barrel and equipped with an attached stabilizing brace that has objective design features that indicate the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder as indicated. And now what they've done is they've created this worksheet ATF worksheet 1499, or I'm sorry, ATF worksheet 4 9 4 9 9 9. And I'll put a link where you can see the worksheet and what you have to do. As either a manufacturer or an individual owner, if you've got a pistol brace, you're going to have to go out and fill out this worksheet. And it's got categories such as adjustability, rear surface area, stabilizing support, link, the pool attachment method. It's two pages and you add up all the points and if the points come up to a certain amount, then that means it's most likely going to be considered a pistol brace. So, but again, nothing definitive and. Everybody's going to do this. And so the thing about this w rule that we've talked about is in the swipe of a pen, they are going to turn millions of farm owners in the felons, because now they're going to be owning what could potentially be considered a regulated firearm and a short barrel rifle. And what they're going to have to do is they're going to have to submit, submit it to the ATF for Evaluation and if, and then wait, and, but in the meantime, they're illegally in possession potentially of an SBR. So most prudent people are just going to go out and destroy all of these pistol braces. So again, this is very tenuous in the fact that, I mean, you're going to be just, you're creating criminals just with the swipe of a rule. And, and again, it's, it's very vague and. Go back to my other argument. Why, what is, what is, so why are we banning short barrel rifles? What's wrong with them? Again, it's because they're used in crimes and now we're, again, go back to that. Heckler's veto is going to be one of my favorite ones. I'm going to go into it a lot just because criminal use it, doesn't make it unconstitutional. So just remember that. And last thing is they did come up with their model legislation as president vine requested on red flag for red flag laws And the, the extreme risk protection orders. And in my podcast from last week, I talked about have a podcast on red flag laws. So go back and listen to it. If you want to get some information about red flag laws, but in this proposal legislation, again, they're just, anybody can file a petition against you. Law enforcement, family members, household members, dating, or intimate partners, healthcare providers, school officials, or. In quotes, any other appropriate person. So what's the definition that can file for a petition of an extreme production or, and again, your rights are taken away. Your guns are confiscated, and then you have to come back and prove that you are not a risk to you or your or someone else. And then you may still not get your Firearms back. So again, these red red cycle house one, they don't work. And two, they are a violation of due process. They are unconstitutional in their, their pure nature. And right now they're there. And again, that all they deal with are farms. So if somebody files a petition says, you're crazy, you're crazy. They're coming and take your farms, but they don't do anything else. They don't put you in a facility. They. They don't, they don't take away your knives. They don't take away anything else. They don't take away your car keys, nothing. They just take away your firearms. So, I mean, there's other provisions are already out there in existing laws where you can deal with people that are having mental issues and those need to be utilized instead of creating a special legislation around firearms. So those are my points. I'll put all links in my show notes and Also, I'm going to put a link to where you can go and make sure because we've got here in Texas, our Senator corn is partnering with a democratic center to try and create legislation for universal background checks. I'm gonna put a link in my show notes to where you can go and submit a letter to your senators and tell them to not support them. This law. So we got to continue this, you know, about action, action, action. We've got to be active in all of this and get our voices heard is important to continue to protect our second amendment rights. So appreciate it right, listening again. Subscribe to this podcast. Give it five stars if you rate it. And you know, my contact information is in the show notes. Follow me com email me, let me know your thoughts and I appreciate you listening and y'all have a great week.