This video provides a more in-depth look at the Militia as discussed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2008:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

This video examines the "Militia" using a two column chart examining the "Militia" in "order by time" and in "order by nature".

In short, the "Militia":

1. Is preexisting and is simply all able bodied males of "The People".
2. Bring the same commonly held arms suitable for self-defense as the "The People".
3. Is NOT a standing army or the "Military".
4. Acts as an obstacle to domestic insurrection, foreign invaders, tyrants and tyrannical governments.

Congress may federalize a "subset" of the "Militia" and train them further to turn them into a more effective fighting force and arm them as it sees fit. It is with the "federalized" subset of the "Militia" that one MIGHT see a militia that bears military arms.

History has shown, as noted by the Supreme Court of the United States, that Tyrants will disarm "The People" in order to disarm the "Militia".

The video finishes by examining commonly heard "Pro-2nd Amendment" and "Anti-2nd Amendment" arguments, analyzing them and tearing them down.

=8-)

This video explains how some states abuse their right to regulate concealed carry.

It describes two common methods used:

1. Declaring all handguns to be concealable - and then putting them behind a permit requirement. States that do this are using their right to regulate concealed carry as a PROXY to ban the Open Carry of handguns.

2. Putting a "just cause" requirement in their concealed carry issuance policies - that somehow seems to only be satisfied by a special few - who upon examination turn out to be those who are "well connected" politically or financially.

This video points out that it is odd how us citizens seem to have equal access to privileges and immunities - except when it comes to the privilege of obtaining a concealed carry permit or handgun permit in some states.

It would appear that some states are creating a "big club" as the late George Carlin would call - one that we as Joe and Jane Public aren't in.

Even worse, some States will use both methods of abuse concurrently.

=8-)

This video explains that "Constitutional Carry" is not what you think it is.

This video is also a warning that taking the "Constitutional Carry" movement at face value without exercising caution could result in YOU unwittingly assisting in the destruction of your 2nd Amendment right.

This video explains that "Constitutional Carry" is a catch-phrase invented by the Concealed Carry lobby attached to a relatively new political marketing campaign designed to get YOU to associate "concealed" with "constitutional" in an attempt to get YOU to buy into the idea that concealed carry is the natural exercise of the right - or the right itself.

The "Constitutional Carry" campaign was launched around 2009-2011 by the Concealed Carry lobby in response to District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - the decision that slammed the door shut on the idea that concealed carry is the right - and recognized that States regulate concealed carry, and that prohibitions thereon may be upheld.

An academic exercise is included in the video - with charts - that demonstrates that if "Constitutional Carry" is to be taken seriously UNDER District of Columbia v. Heller, then there are FOUR ways that "Constitutional Carry" would occur . . .

. . . not just ONE.

In light of the academic exercise that is presented - the fact they only acknowledge and promote ONE of the FOUR is a giveaway - a tell - that reveals that the real agenda behind "Constitutional Carry" is to get concealed carry without a permit.

=8-)

In this video I explain my view in relation to concealed carry. Instead of taking a position, I simply assume my proper place.

Per District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) I simply:

1. Respect the right of the States or Polities to regulate concealed carry.
2. Respect the right of the people of the States or Polities to bring about a change in the concealed carry regulations for their State or Polity.

I also point out that the people of various States or Polities have done exactly that in just the last roughly two decades.

To see this, all one has to do is visit USCONCEALEDCARRY at:

http://www.usconcealedcarry.com

They have a slideshow that shows a steady progression starting from 1986 - from year to year and state by state - in which states have moved from a restricted concealed carry policies to more liberalized concealed carry policies. It's a rather impressive progression for such a huge undertaking by people in any state.

=8-)

This video explains a particular core value that is under attack by that segment of the 2nd Amendment community that is really the pro-Concealed Carry lobby.

"Concealment out and about in public, in and of itself, rises to the level of criminally suspicious behavior until further notice."

This value has been hashed out, developed and practiced in various variations throughout western civilization and can be seen in the fabric of today's United States of America - which is an extension of western civilization.

We see it in the practice of simple everyday common courtesy, such as when people greet each other in public, and in one or more school rules commonly posted in middle school and high school classrooms.

We see it in the Code of Civil Procedure for the State of California which has a subsection for legally changing ones name. The procedure includes a step for finger ink rolling or a LIvescan for the purpose of linking the new name to the old name's criminal background history - a precaution taken to make sure the name change process is not being used as an attempt to escape one's criminal background.

The concealed carry lobby in the United States has repeatedly argued in forums, before courts and before legislatures that "open carry may be banned in favor of concealed carry." This is an attempt to promote that which is coveted by assassins and criminals alike for its secret advantage over that which is open and honest.

Along with this comes attempts to "normalize" concealable weapons.

Furthermore, the concealed carry lobby continues to advocate "national concealed carry reciprocity" - which would give the federal government via Congress power to regulate the States regulation of concealed carry, forcing a state that does not allow concealed carry or does not recognize another states concealed carry policy to accept it anyway.

All together, this is an attempt to take that core value of western civilization and completely flip it - a dramatic and radical change.

The individuals and organizations that promote concealed carry over open carry, push for national concealed carry reciprocity and push for acceptance of concealable weapons are also revealing who they really are on the ideological spectrum.

They are NOT libertarians and NOR are they conservatives NOR are they advocates of limited government. They are progressive liberals and quite possibly anarchists and radicals.

=8-)

A semi-thorough in-depth look at the District of Columbia v. Heller decision released in 2008 by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Make certain you have your own copy before watching this video.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

* The PEOPLE have an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of confrontation.
* To keep is to own, to bear is to carry - in one's hand, on one's person, in one's pocket or clothing.
* Justice Ginsburg provided the definition of "carry" - A DEFINITION ONLY - NOT AN ARGUMENT - with all justices concurring.
* Without a purpose, the right is meaningless. The purpose is to confront a threat.
* The MILITIA is simply all able bodied males as part of the "People".
* The militia PREEXIST - they are NOT created - just as the "People" preexist.
* The militia is NOT the military.
* The military and standing armies are CREATED.
* The State is NOT physical. In the context of the 2nd Amendment right, the State is the FREE POLITY - the people who form government with their consent.
* The preexisting militia exists to SECURE the free polity. Their preexistence is as an obstacle to standing armies, domestic insurrectionists and foreign invaders.
* Nunn v. State (GA) and State v. Chandler (LA) made it crystal clear that Open Carry is the right, the default exercise and the natural exercise of the 2nd Amendment right.
* The Georgia Supreme Court was the same court around the same time as Nunn v. State that upheld a prohibition on concealed carry in another case.
* Post Civil war Freedman's Bureau Act (1866) was necessary to remind everyone the citizens enjoy their right without respect to race, color or previous condition of slavery.
* United States v. Miller made it clear that not only was the mode of carry under examination in 2nd Amendment cases, but the weapon held or used was under examination.
* Possession of concealable weapons, unusually dangerous weapons - or weapons that don't pass the "suitable for self-defense" test can put one in legal jeopardy.
* In wrapping up the case, the Supreme Court of the United States made it crystal clear that the 2nd Amendment right was not without limitation.
* They provided examples of limitations on sensitive places, prohibited persons, concealed carry among others.
* In reviewing the District of Columbia's issuance policy, the Supreme Court of the United States reminded everyone of the right to open carry.
* They reminded everyone that the preferred weapon of choice for self-defense is a handgun.
* They pointed out that requiring the handgun to be disassembled and locked away was to effectively limit the ability to confront in a timely manner, rendering the right useless.
* They finished the case by noting that the defendant (DC) made a last minute offer of a permit to which the plaintiff (Mr. Heller) accepted.

I repeatedly warn the audience that to educate others on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - whether it be at 2nd Amendment forums or in the comments sections at 2nd Amendment social media sites - will get one into "hot water". The hostile parties will be those individuals and organizations that claim to be pro-2nd Amendment, BUT are really members of or supporters of the pro-Concealed Carry lobby. Encouraging others to actually read the DC v. Heller decision makes YOU a threat to that Concealed Carry lobby. An informed 2nd Amendment community will more likely question the claims that the Concealed Carry lobby makes, and will more likely be less accepting of some of the ideas the the Concealed Carry lobby tries to sell to the 2nd Amendment community.

YOU educate others on District of Columbia v. Heller at YOUR OWN RISK!

=8-)

This video provides an overview of where the Supreme Court of the United is at now in terms of jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment as of February 10, 2020.

Three cases - one a comprehensive review, another an application review and the latest as a clarification - are covered in brief and represent where the Supreme Court of the United States stand at the time of this video.

February 10, 2020:

DC v Heller
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

- 2nd Amendment right is an individual right.
- History and Tradition is the standard of review.
- Commonly held arms suitable for self-defense are protected.
- The 2nd Amendment does not preclude future arms.
- Concealable arms and unusually dangerous arms can put one in legal jeopardy.
- The 2nd Amendment right as like our other civil rights is NOT absolute.
- There are limitations relating to sensitive places.
- There are limitations in regards to persons such as felons and the dangerously mentally ill.
- Open carry is the default mode of carry as it is the behavior of a gentlemen and puts others on due notice allowing others to govern themselves accordingly.
- Concealed carry is the mode coveted by assassins and criminals alike seeking secretive advantage.
- States may regulate concealed carry and bans on concealed carry may be upheld.
- Case was prematurely concluded due to a last minute settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

MacDonald v City of Chicago
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

- The 2nd Amendment applies to the States.

Jaime Caetano v Massachusetts
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

- The Supreme Court of the United States meant what it said in DC v Heller when it said that the 2nd Amendment does not preclude future arms.
- Stun Guns are suitable for self-defense.
- Prosecuting a homeless woman who was left to fend for herself without any pretense of assistance or concern by authorities raises cause for criticism.

*** This video will be updated and replaced upon the release of a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in NYSRPA v NYC which could come at any time. ***

This video introduces the channel and the host. Provides a very general overview of what the focus will be. Describes the three different audience reactions and audience types that will be prevalent with additional videos. Hints as to what some of the future videos will cover.