CSPOA Posse Intel Webinar- Democratic Murder of America Unconstitutional Gun Control More

➡ This is a discussion from a weekly webinar by CSPOA.org, where Sheriff Mack talks about encouraging sheriffs to uphold the Constitution. They also discuss various ways to support CSPOA, including buying products from their store. Sheriff Mack shares his upcoming trips and presentations, expressing excitement about a trip to Hawaii. He also mentions his involvement with a Christian-based rehab group and his disappointment with the imprisonment of innocent people. Lastly, he reads a chapter from his book, “The Democrat Murder of America,” discussing the manipulation of the masses through fear and the negative narrative surrounding Trump.
➡ The speaker discusses various political issues, including the arrest authority over Venezuela’s Maduro, the effectiveness of the United States’ justice system, and the importance of standing up against corrupt politicians. They express support for former President Trump and Sheriff Darleaf, who has been investigating election fraud. The speaker also criticizes the United Nations and mentions a letter from Sheriff Darleaf to President Trump about potential election security threats. They end by questioning the legitimacy of some politicians’ elections and the desire of career politicians to hold onto power.
➡ The speaker discusses various topics, including concerns about potential voter fraud, the importance of unity in addressing government corruption, and the issue of gun control. He expresses support for individuals standing up for their rights, criticizes the Democratic party’s stance on gun ownership, and questions a recent court ruling in Connecticut that upholds a ban on handgun permits for people under 21. He emphasizes the need for citizens to understand and protect their constitutional rights.
➡ The text discusses the controversy around gun control laws, particularly focusing on age restrictions. It questions the fairness of laws that prevent 18 to 20-year-olds from owning guns, arguing that if they’re old enough to vote and serve in the military, they should be allowed to own guns. The text also criticizes the idea of ‘common sense’ gun control, suggesting it’s a misleading term. Lastly, it expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of existing gun control laws in improving safety.
➡ A recent court ruling has sparked debate about the rights of young adults under 21 to own firearms. The case, brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and others, argued that if 18-year-olds are considered adults in other aspects of law, they should also have the right to own guns. However, the judge ruled in favor of the existing laws, which restrict gun ownership for those under 21. This decision has caused controversy, with some arguing it contradicts historical practices and the Second Amendment.
➡ A man who was supported by President Trump lost his run for Congress despite leading in the polls. The discussion then focused on the importance of the Constitutional Sheriff movement and the CSPOA (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association). The speaker emphasized that constitutional policing could solve many problems and encouraged more people to join the CSPOA, including those from Canada and Germany. The conversation ended with a call for support and a reminder to visit their store.

Hello everyone and welcome again to another edition of the CSPOA.org’s weekly Wednesday webinar. Along with myself, it’s Sheriff Mack. Today we’re out talking about the CSPOA and the various ways in which people around the nation are encouraging their sheriff to do what’s right and stand up for both the Constitution and for the people that elected him. And it’s our obligation to work towards that goal because this is a two sided street. I mean, the sheriff can get elected and he can sit on his laurels, but this is a double sided sword. We have to get out and stab him a little bit from time to time and say, hey, they’re tearing down our institutions and our way of life.

Follow the Constitution. So that’s what this show is about. Today Sheriff Mack’s here with us to discuss that approach. And in the meantime, I’d like to thank everyone for donating and being part of this economically through supporting the posse and, and also by encouraging friends and family to become members. Remember, there’s various ways in which you can support. Mostly you just show up@cspoa.org and choose to take advantage of one of our products, our health food supply and list of products, our storable food supply and list of products. And also we have gold and silver and books and many other things in the CSPOA store.

So please support the cspoa. Sheriff Mack. Actually, I’m working on a new gold company and we’ll have a new one up and running pretty soon. Excellent. Even better deals. Yeah, it’s, it’s, it’s actually a Christian based group called Revelation Gold Group and I’ve already met with them. I met with them when I was in Las Vegas at the Freedom Fest and they’ve been following up and they actually are very professional and they’ve already sent me a contract and. Wow. Somebody’s actually sending a contract, an agreement that shows and we get to see everything, all the transactions, all the commissions and so we’re really excited about this one.

Okay, well, however you decide to buy gold and silver, whether you click the button today or next week, one way or another, everyone is going to wish they had gold and silver before this all plays out. Absolutely true. So anyway, so what’s new with the cspoa? What are you, where’s your next trip? Where are you off to? I’ve got 10, maybe 11 presentations scheduled between now and October 20th. Wow, busy. Yeah. And I’m really looking forward to the one in Hawaii. Yeah, you ought to join me on that. One don’s not so certain because it’s travel every day and when she goes to Hawaii, she kind of likes to relax at the beach.

So I told her maybe I could just leave her in Waikiki and then come back and spend the last day with her and get home. But my next one is. Okay, where am I going next? Oh, Coeur d’, Alene, Idaho. I’m appearing just at a fundraiser for, let me see, Set Apart Deci Discipleship. And, and that’s actually a rehab. They do rehab for people with addictions. And my son went through it about a year ago and I’m telling you, it is fantastic. Their success rate is about 85%. It’s like I said, Christian based. It’s very religious and people find a way out because they find Jesus and it’s fantastic.

And so they’ve invited me to come speak at their, at their fundraiser and we’re actually getting Mike Lindell to donate some items for the, the auction. And we totally support this group so we’re really happy to be a part of it. And that’s my next one right after that. I have, I think, I think the one in New York is at the end of this month. I’ve already got my flight and it’s right outside. Is it Staten Island? It’s not Long Island. Long island is California, right? Or is there a Long island in New York? That’s where you said you were going last time, Long Island.

Okay, it’s Long island then. And then we’ll be there about three or four days and we come back and then September 3rd, I’ve got Las Vegas and then I got Vegas again after that. And think in the middle of the month of August at the Ahern Hotel. What, what is that? And what’s, what’s that? What, what are your events in Vegas about? Does the one, the, the one that’s in the middle of the month is Storm Summit. Storm Summit. And my, the biggest reason I want to go is it’ll be the first time I going to be able to see Tina Peters since she got out of prison.

And I can’t wait to give her a big hug. And I, I’m ashamed of the, of, of all of us. I’m ashamed of the Patriot community that didn’t get her out sooner. And I’m pointing the finger at me too. We should have done more. I cannot stand, and you know how I feel about this. I cannot stand the idea of innocent people going to prison in this country. It just absolutely blows me away. And like you know, I know I handled this Sam Jaron one and maybe I should have been stronger when he got sentenced and told the judge that he was.

That the judge was a huge miscarriage of justice and that he was allowing this and being. And being part of it and fomenting a miscarriage of justice in his courtroom. I should have just stood up and said it, but I’d probably just be getting out of prison myself if I did. If I had. I don’t know. But maybe we need to make. Maybe we need to take more chances, just like with my book. No, people are going to be mad. And tomorrow, tomorrow I go to Safford where I was sheriff, and I’m being interviewed by the local newspaper there.

And there’s a lot of friends of mine there that are all Democrats. It’s a very big Democrat county, but it’s also a very pro second Amendment county. So we’re definitely going to have that talk. And the editor of the newspaper called me and wanted me to come on over and do it in person. So I don’t know if he’s doing an article for the newspaper. I hope so, but he said he wanted that. They do a lot of podcasts themselves and he’s going to do a podcast with me tomorrow. So I guess that’s my first event.

And then there’s others coming up. Oh, Sam Bushman’s doing one on September 11 that he’s invited me to come speak at in Utah. And, and then I have. Oh, I have a guy trying to get his sheriff in Wisconsin to take the training. So that was not, that was not scheduled yet, but all the others are. And then Hawaii is like September, no, October 13th through the 18th, and we’re going to every island but the Big island twice. So I don’t know. To me, though, Don should just go with me on all of them because it’s Hawaii.

I don’t care what I’m doing if I’m in Hawaii. I enjoy it. I don’t care. I feel the breeze. I see the palm trees swaying. I see the sunsets. I don’t care what I’m doing there. I. It makes me feel good. It makes me feel like I’m in paradise. Now I have a. I just opened the book and I’m going to read to you a chapter out of the book. No matter where you go in this new book, folks. Yeah, the Democrat Murder of America. No matter where you go. There’s some amazing point being made in the book.

And so where do I want to read? Well, I’LL I’ll start here because the, the, this talks about the subtitle Demagoguery in the first degree. So page 134. The bottom line is demagoguery in the first degree. Triggering irrational fear to manipulate the masses. Social and mainstream media have whipped people into a frenzy and they continue to feed that frenzy. They do this to control the narrative surrounding Trump in every way they can. When Twitter was told was sold to Musk, the TDS victims, that’s Trump derangement syndrome migrated to the Blue sky website and their syndrome got worse.

We believe that the left has and will continue to infect people with the idea that they must kill Trump. And that’s there. And, and I know there’s some people on this show and on the webinar that don’t like Trump. That’s fine, that’s fine. But that, that anyone supports what the Democrats have been saying about him and not just the subtle ideas being put out there that you can, you could. There’s a poll, and I think we show that in the book, there are some polls that show that about 30% of the people in this country believe killing Trump would be okay.

And I would never say that about any president. I did not say that about Obama. I would never. In fact, I scolded some people in the freedom movement, whoever even suggested such a thing. And I heard people say it a few times, not very often. Most of the people in the freedom movement are smarter than that. You do not want to do that. You do not want to make somebody like that a martyr and increase their influence. But no, I would never say that about any president or any dictator. I, I’m still 50. 50 on Maduro.

In Maduro in Venezuela. Who has the right to arrest him? Who has the authority to arrest him? International courts. If somebody told me that they had a warrant for me and for you, Jack, from an international court, I say, what a joke. Did that come from the United Nations? They’re a joke and they’re not over us. The United States is a sovereign country, and we do not answer to another country or to another jurisdiction. So I’m wondering how that happened with Maduro. Do I think he deserves to be prosecuted? Yes, but how do we. And so I, like I say, I believe there’s some accurate.

I believe there’s some legitimate ways to do this, and I hope there has to be. How do we go after criminals, criminal politicians in the United States? Because it’s not working very well. And, and draining the swamp has not worked very well at all. And I don’t want to look at another patriot in the eye like Tina Peters and Sam Gerard and others innocent people. Because quite honestly, folks, I’m afraid this is going to happen to some of us the next time around when the pendulum swings back to the left and especially somebody who wrote a book called the Democrat Murder of America.

And I’m not going to be milquetoast anymore. I’m going to be forthright about saving America. The most important person we can keep from going to jail or to the hospital in this country is Lady Liberty. And it’s happening right before our eyes. Too many churches, including my own, are too milquetoast on going after and calling out corrupt politicians. And I’m not going to be. And where am I at on Trump right now? I still feel we were lucky and blessed to have him as president. Does he know the Constitution very well? No. Is he trying to destroy the Constitution and have it replaced with the Communist Manifesto? No, he is not.

So let’s, let’s, let’s see the good that he is trying to do and what he has done. Should he be doing what he’s doing in Iran? I’m more than 50, 50 on that, I would say probably. And so we’ll just leave it at that for this, at this time because we have a lot of good sheriffs doing some great things in this country right now. And Jack, I got that letter directly to me from Sheriff Darleaf. He has been investigating election fraud for over five years now and he’s on his fifth term. He told me he’s not sure if he gets reelected.

But I’m telling you, if he’s going to, if he’s going for another six term. But if I were to move anywhere in this country and I knew I would have a constitutional sheriff defending me, it would be Berry County, Michigan. Not because I like the weather there, but because I like the sheriff who has the guts to stand for his convictions and to protect the people of his county. That’s why he is good news. He is good people. He is a solid constitutional sheriff that everyone in this country, every sheriff, every public official should be emulating.

Sheriff Dar Leaf okay, so yeah, let’s take a look at that wonderful letter that he sent to President Trump. And I told him to let me know as soon as he hears from somebody in the White House. And maybe I need to write such a letter if this gets response so that they’ll put me as a witness against the SPLC folks. This would be a tremendous boost to, I Being a witness for them against the SPLC would be a tremendous boost to their case, because how are they going to justify putting Sheriff mack on their 40 most violent and dangerous domestic terrorists of America? How are they going to justify that against me? They will be able to quote nothing and it’ll all be conjecture on their part.

Oh. Oh, he believes in Oath Keepers. Oh, wow. Yeah. So. Yeah, because we don’t want to keep our oaths in this country, that’s for damn sure. Yeah. So, anyway, but go ahead and read that, Jack, because this is an amazing letter. This is a sheriff who has taken the election fraud horns into his own hand. Or the wretched fraud bull by the horns. Because it isn’t a bull. It is a bull. It is absolutely true. And this guy’s doing his job, so go ahead and read that. Dear honorable President Trump, I’m writing to inform you that I have evidence of urgent security threat.

Of an urgent security threat. Liberty Vote has concealed its employment of Venezuelans and the fact that past Dominion Smart Matic has seen Coya employees and contractors are currently working for the company. Edmond Roja is one example. I assume I’m saying that, right? Mr. Roja is from Caracas, Venezuela, and work for Dominion Voting. Edmond Roja and others are permitted remote access to the US Election equipment by virtual machines, and this access went undetected by clerks across the country. This insider threat is not isolated to Mr. Roja. I have evidence that other critical Dominion employees with remote access have transferred to Liberty.

Attached you will find proof of Dominion and Eric Comer’s email reflecting that he surreptitiously accessed early voting results using a WINEDA server prior to pushing the result files to the US EMS. Eric Comer coordinated his access during the November 2020 election with a network that included Ronald Morale and Serbian foreign nationals. Boy, that’s awesome. I hear experts are promoting a patch and other measures to address vulnerabilities. Patches are funny, Mr. President. You have an insider threat problem that a patch cannot correct. Sincerely, Darle Mary County, Michigan Sheriff. Yeah, this. If I. If I were the President, I would be calling on Dar to be part of his committee to go after this.

Yep. You know, but. Yeah, yeah. So if this doesn’t get a response from somebody somewhere in the White House, because this has gone to. Also, I immediately forwarded it to Mark Fincham, State Senator from Arizona, who’s been at several of our events for. And a speaker for cspoa. In fact, he’s going to be at the next one in Las Vegas that I was telling you about. He has connections there. And so I sent it to him and I said, hey, Mark, did you. Did you see this yet? He said, yes. Sheriff Leaf sent it to me the same time he sent it to you.

I said, great. So Mark is really, I should say, Senator Fincham is really involved in election fraud. And he believes more than anything that Arizona and Maricopa county are still and regrettably an integral part of that. And Mark Fincham can tell you some stories about election fraud. Mark Fincham ran, and he was up 6, 7%, 8%, maybe, in the polls for Secretary of State. Secretary of State is in charge of elections. The person that beat him was Adrian Fontes. And Adrian Fontes is an attorney. And guess who he was an attorney for here in the state of Arizona and some even down in Mexico.

For the cartels. He was an attorney for the cartels, and the people of Arizona made him Secretary of State. I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that that would have happened because everybody knew that’s what his record was based on. And so obviously, you want me to tell you about election fraud. Yes. Adrian Fontes, that he got elected. You have to know there was fraud. Nancy Pelosi, you have to know the people in the San Francisco area aren’t that stupid. There’s people who really believe in freedom all across California. Maxine Waters, she gets elected every year, and she’s still like 83 now, and she.

She can’t even hardly walk or talk. But. And yes, are there Republicans like that? I mean, Mitch McConnell, give me a break. Why did. Why do these career politicians, both Republican and Democrat, believe that we just want them to stay there and never retire? And this is what I told one such politician here in Arizona. You know what? Most normal people want to retire, but you crazy people that are so ate up and saturated in your personality with power, you can’t walk away, even if it’s. Even when it’s best for you and your family. Go be with your family.

You don’t have much time left. Go away. And they just can’t do it. They’re too addicted to the power and. And stuff, man. So what else really hit you about that article, Jack? Well, the fact that he’s still pursuing it. You. You know, how many people that you spoke to, for example, and, and we wrote about and talked about that had something to do with, you know, getting interested and active in the election frauds around the country, which there were many that have just walked away from it. I mean, how many sheriffs continue To. To pay attention to what’s happening and.

And continue their investigations. I would say none of them. I mean, we’re. They’re probably. I mean, may. Maybe a handful, maybe, but. Yeah. And so that’s. That’s what distinguishes Darle from the rest of them. In my boat. It’s not surprising that he found a whole handful of people that you have trouble saying their last names, and they’re not citizens, you know, being involved with companies that are related to Dominion. Dominion’s. And a known terrorist platform. So anyway, that’s all I could say is congratulations and keep going. Hopefully someday he can actually arrest and, you know, about seven or eight years ago, he was our Constitutional Sheriff of the Year.

Right. And we haven’t even picked one yet for 2026. I can’t remember if we did 2025. I’m going to have to ask Sam, but there’s several that would be up for it in 2026. And maybe we need to make a special award for Darleaf being the Constitutional Sheriff of the decade or. Or of the century. Right. So we really. In fact, that reminds me, I need to call Sheriff Bob Songer today, see how he and his wife are doing. They’ve both been fighting some major ailments, and it’s. It’s really sad to see a good friend and a good sheriff like Sheriff Songer getting old.

And I believe he’s 81, and he’s been in law enforcement over 50 years, about as long as my wife and I have been married. Man, that’s amazing. But Sheriff Songer, we love you and we’re so thankful that you’ve been there. Same with Sheriff Leaf. Thank you, Dar. Thank you so much for what you’ve done for America. And I have another story. You asked about how the CSPA is doing. Monday, I got a call from somebody who said the sheriff of Shasta county, and I believe it’s Sheriff Johnson, has a. County, county recorder who’s actually doing what Tina Peters did to get nine years in prison, that he is securing some ballots because he actually is very suspicious that they’re fraudulent.

And so he has put them in a secure place where nobody else can get them. And he’s so afraid that if he’s not going to get any help and that somebody’s going to try to come and arrest him. And so I left a message with Sheriff Johnson yesterday who has not returned my call. And I’m going to start calling him every other day until I get to talk to him, because he needs to get involved in this and he needs to investigate this and he needs to protect the county recorder that we’re talking about here. His name is, I think Clint Curtis, but I, I believe it’s Curtis.

So regardless, CSPA once again is involved with a national issue of voter fraud. And it folks, it. If you find out this guy gets arrested, if this guy gets arrested, I’m going to move to that county or at least go check into an Airbnb and take as many people with us from CSPA as we can and go march on this and go pound on doors of elected officials who better put an end to this kind of crap. And like I say, nothing gets me more upset than innocent people in prison. And this has happened for far too long.

Why does not the NAACP and other Al Sharpton and, and those types, why don’t they get involved with people besides blacks being unjustly treated by government? This is something that should unite all of us and that we all remember that we’re Americans first. And I’m, I’m dark complected. In fact, my elderly years, I’ve gotten a little bit lighter. But there were times when, especially when I was in high school and when I spent a lot of time in the sun, I’m very dark complected. When I went to swimming as an adolescent, the Mexicans there would try to get me to talk Spanish and it would really frustrate me because I couldn’t speak it.

I wanted to, and so now I can. But, but folks, we’ve got to come together on certain issues and that’s what I want the left and the right to agree on. Come in the middle and say, no more innocent people in prison. No matter the, the Democrats are saying, oh yeah, if we disagree with them, go arrest them. If they don’t support our agenda, our go arrest them. And that’s gone on too much too. And, and yes, the Democrats are worse than the Republicans on that. Now have Republicans done it? I’m sure they have. I can’t think of an incident where they have right now.

But we in the book, we assail big time Richard Nixon. And you cannot let what you cannot let go what he did. You can’t give a free pass to, to Nixon. And we didn’t. And some people have complained that we haven’t delved in the book, that we haven’t delved into more conspiracy theories and really going after Netanyahu and Zionists and the Illuminati and stuff. We wanted to keep this a little bit simpler, but yet powerful about the corruption that we’re dealing with today. So it, we did it to where no one can say, oh, these are just crazy conspiracy theories from Sheriff Mack and his crazy Daniel Perkins.

This is all taken from mainstream resources that we’re quoting. And my co author did some great work on finding published polls and charts about like the 20 worst places to live in America where the 20, that 20 worst crime rates, 19 of them are run by Democrats. 19. And, and so yeah, it’s. Yeah, after a while, Democrats, you got to start seeing the writing on the wall. And, and the, the main thing I’m going to talk about tomorrow is that how many of you Democrats own guns in Graham County? How many of you Democrats own guns? Your party is completely against that.

You’ve got to decide. You need to decide. Are you a gun owner and a Christian or are you a Democrat? And don’t tell me that the tent can fit all of that. Any gun owner and any Christian will have a hard time accepting the door opening to their tent. It should be impossible as a matter of fact. So anyway, I didn’t catch all the questions, but I know Ian was like asking a few questions. But we also have another article that I wanted you to show. So let’s go ahead and do that. I don’t want to get ahead of myself on questions.

Thanks for being here. Ian, man, you’re stalwart. Which article are you referring to? I had several that I sent you. I can’t remember if it was the second one or the third one I have about the Connecticut law being upheld under 21 handgun ban. Oh yeah, that was one of them. Yeah. Yeah. Is that one? Because I’m really into gun control issues today. Okay, well, so we’ll talk about that one. Okay, so what we have is, well, it’s not surprising that it comes from Connecticut. They’re one of the, what I would say the least constitutional states in the United States.

But what they’ve done is a federal district judge upheld the state’s firearm restriction that prevents people under 21 from getting a handgun permit. And this case was called Succo vs Bondi. I suppose that would be. I don’t know. Could it be Pam Bondi? I don’t know. It’s. It’s more of a familiar name that I know. But it doesn’t ever say that it’s her that I saw. Yeah, I didn’t either. Was initiated by two 19 year old residents of Connecticut, Sakow and town. Anyway, they got supported with two non profits. You got to take your hat off to them though.

Night 18 and 19 year olds actually filing suit. So great job there. Yep. My guess is that these nonprofits got behind them. But anyway, it doesn’t matter. The Connecticut Defense League and the Second Amendment foundation argue it’s unconstitutional to prohibit adults. There’s a keyword between the ages of 18 and 20 from transferring, purchasing, selling and or carrying handguns. In their complaint, the plaintiffs said the prohibition violated both their second and fourteenth amendment rights. And so it is clear to me, and I think probably it is to you, that these gentlemen are over the age of 18, which makes them an adult and United States, and therefore the Constitution, you know, applies to them being of sound mind and body and of the proper age.

They come under the, the guidelines, and they should then therefore be protected by the Second Amendment. But this particular person, Judge Sarah Nagala, who’s not a fan of guns and also a 2021 Biden nominee, so we have our Democrat connection, rejected the plaintiff’s claim on the 23rd after two day bench trial where facts were presented, she found that the state and federal handgun restrictions do not violate plaintiff’s Second Amendment or 14th Amendment rights as they’re consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation. So I’m not sure how you can make that claim there. If you’re just talking about the words that we find in the second Amendment, I think they’re pretty clear.

They don’t refer to any history or traditional firearms regulation. Way back when I worked for Gun Owners of America, I made up a shirt with a, with a militia man holding his musket and he’s asking the government, what part of infringed don’t you understand? Yeah. And folks, you got to ask that today, 99% of the Democrats do not know what shall not be infringed means. How can they not understand that? Shall not not. Maybe not. Or if you don’t like a certain gun, it’s okay. It’s shall not be infringed. Oh, I’m sorry, interrupted. Go ahead. No, no, that’s.

You’re absolutely right and it couldn’t be clearer. So anytime someone builds an argument like this, they’re lying. And, and this is not a factual way in which you address this. This is just some sort of scheme, some sort a method of getting around the facts. She reviewed both federal and state gun control legislation and registration process to come to this conclusion? No, I think she reviewed her marching orders. The district court found no founding error, support for the laws that strip young adults of their constitutional rights. Of course it’s Connecticut. Right. A joint statement from lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, Cameron.

And, and these people said that means under a U. S. Supreme court president, the court should have ruled for the plaintiffs. And that is true. If they found no founding error, support for the laws that strip their constitutional rights, then. Then what are they talking about anyway? They’re of course wanting to use this word that makes me want to throw up every time I see it. I’m sick to death of seeing that stupid word. It’s camouflage for we. I mean it’s got the word almost. You’re talking about common sense. Yep. Right, Yeah, I don’t like hearing that either because that just means you can call anything common sense, you know, and, and obviously gun control has had that as a talking point for a couple of decades.

Oh, it’s just common sense. You have this kind of gun control. But how can it be that a, a 19 year old and I guess, does it include 20 year olds? You have to be 21. Got to be 21. So how is it that you can discriminate between a 20 year old and a 21 year old or an 18 year old, 21 year old can have a gun, an 18 year old can’t. Why, what’s the difference? One can’t drink, so of course he can’t have a gun. I said what? Yeah, yeah, no, he could only not drink after they did the same thing to that.

You know, I’m, you know, when you’re an 18 year old person, you’re old enough to do anything in our civilization that you want to do. So telling them they can’t drink is the same as telling them they can’t have a gun. These are two things that they can’t, you know, logically legally remove. Yeah, okay, let me do that one then. Where’s the common sense of telling an, an adult that can vote and go to be in the army be killing people in the middle east or wherever we go? Doesn’t matter. Like back when my time, Vietnam, you know, I grew up with Vietnam.

But still, where is the common sense that an 18 year old who can vote cannot exercise whatever they think the second amendment is that allows a 21 year old to carry or own a gun. There’s no common sense to that. And that the history of gun regulation, because there’s been, that’s, that that’s probably the, one of the worst bogus, stupid things I’ve ever heard because I’ve heard judges actually say that when they support gun control it’s constitutional because there’s so Many different regulations in America that we now accept as constitutional because there’s so many of them.

What. So there’s hundreds of judges that violate the law which now for this judge makes it lawful, makes it constitutional because so many of them have done the wrong thing. Right. You know, this, this individual, the attorney general there made the comment and I have to go back to where that was that you know that again that they’ve stood up for an attack on, on gun, Connecticut’s gun safety laws. Okay. So they have, they have to put this in here. I don’t think this guy, General Tong is actually was born in the U.S. he’s an Asian.

I mean it just seems like they put so many non born here Americans who grew up in our culture and our way of life in positions of power. And they did that in Virginia too in this, in the same position in Attorney General. So that they can react to these things without very impartial to who gives a, you know, what about what Americans think they should deserve and the rights they think they have, have. But anyway, we will continue to fight the reckless attempts to weaken Connecticut’s gun safety protections. I don’t think that there’s anything about safety involved in this because when you take my right and any adult’s right to protect themselves away, I can’t be safe.

So these things are, you know. Well, you, you know the part that they’re, and maybe you read it, but the part in the 14th Amendment that they’re actually saying is equal protection under the law. Right. Where how can they justify the a six months age difference, you know, or two year age difference, the 21 year old can have a gun. See, government assuming that role and usurping authority to make a determination like that. They simply should have said we don’t, we don’t have the authority to get involved in this. Right. Yeah, they, because they don’t. They don’t.

You know, if they wanted to punt the ball down the field, they could have said that we don’t have the authority. You’re gonna. Well who would we take? Who does? Who would be. And they would, they should say no one. We don’t have the authority to tell you who can and who cannot have a gun. Exactly. You know, and that might even be common sense. But it’s definitely common law. Right. If only they were acting under common law. Now their attorneys are saying at this point we are evaluating all options to restore the plaintiff’s rights. And you know, this generally will bring another suit.

That’ll follow and then you’ll get back into the case of Bruin and so forth. We’ll see how, you know, if it, if it would fall back into the Supreme Court of the United States, you know, we might have a chance to overturn this. This is a district court in Connecticut, so it could go to the Supreme Court in Connecticut. But I don’t, I don’t hold much hope for the Supreme Court of Connecticut standing up for our gun rights. Do you? Anyway, it’s gone. Like I say in the book, the Democrat Murder of America, we’ve gone too far.

This is just, is so the idiocy and the lunacy of gun grabbers has just gotten worse every year. And they always say that we need this gun control law and then we’re all going to be safer and then we’re not. So they say, oh, but we got to do more. Yeah. And so, folks, there’s over 20,000 gun control laws in America, state, local and federal and probably even un. You know, but there’s 20,000 which aren’t laws at all. 20,000 gun control laws in America. And it’s been that way for a long time. Every time it’s, we will be safer.

How’s that been working out for us Democrats? How’s that, how’s that safety program coming along? I think what you got to do, Sheriff Mack, is understand how they redefine words. And the word we doesn’t mean me and you. We’re not in a we club. You know, they, they put in the post offices during the last 20 years, diversity is our strength or who is our. We found that that diversity has led to massive problems in the United States. So I think it’s just, you know, they’re very careful with words. I’m going to put this up on the screen.

Not to play it necessarily, but to also people about it. And to note that he said that the federal judge rejects Bruin. He’s talking about this case. And in that sense, they have, you know, they, they’ve ignored that ruling. And it seems that these Supreme Court cases just get ignored all the time. But this federal judge, or I’m sorry, this website, Guns and Gadgets and Second Amendment News, is a great source for daily information. I mean, he really digs and he’s an excellent reporter on the subject. And that’s where I first found out about this story.

Well, let’s hear a couple minutes of what he says. Okay, we’ll play it from the beginning. Sure, we can. Ages of 18 and 20 obtaining supporter paying attention because a federal judge has just upheld Connecticut’s ban on adults between the ages of 18 and 20 obtaining from obtaining pistol permits possessing handguns under the state’s framework. And the judge, she also upheld the federal restriction on FFL handgun sales to adults under 21. But what does the text, history and tradition say now? On its face, this obviously is a loss for gun owners immediately, but when you dig into the actual opinion, you start seeing something that could become incredibly important down the road.

The judge admits there is no clear founding era tradition supporting these restrictions, yet still finds a way to uphold them by leaning on different historical analogs and Reconstruction era laws. But she missed the big one. And this creates a problem because if you’ve been following Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence since Bruen, you already know the court repeatedly told lower court courts that judges are not supposed to invent history. That wasn’t there. But today I’m going to break down exactly what happened, why this ruling matters, why this directly conflicts with victories we’ve already seen in the Fifth Circuit, and why this case may be heading exactly where many of us expected from the beginning.

The United States Supreme Court. Before we dig in, my name is Jared and this is Guns and Gadgets. I cover the Second Amendment news every. You want me to continue or you? Are you good? Let’s go a couple minutes more. Okay. I mean he’s, he’s worth listening to. Single day without. Yeah. Media spin. You get in the mainstream now, if that’s something you’re into, then hit the subscribe button and turn on the notifications because these court battles are moving fast and I don’t want you to miss any of them. Now let’s get into it. This lawsuit was filed by the Second Amendment foundation, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and two 19 year old Connecticut residents.

Their argument was actually pretty straightforward. If an 18 year old is legally considered an adult, they can vote, sign contracts, serve in the military, be tried as an adult. They can be drafted. If Congress ever reinstated the draft, then why can government tell the same adult that they cannot exercise a constitutional right specifically protected by the Bill of Rights? The plaintiffs challenge both Connecticut law and federal law. Specifically Connecticut’s prohibition on issuing pistol permits to adults under 21, its restrictions on handgun possession and carrying as well, and the federal law prohibiting licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to adults under 21.

In other words, they weren’t asking for special treatment, they were asking for equal constitutional treatment under the Second Amendment. Equal protection if you will. After a two day bench trial, US District Judge Sarala Nagala, she ruled almost entirely in favor of Connecticut and the federal government. One plaintiff was dismissed on standing grounds because he had not completed Connecticut’s required firearms training. That’s not in the text, history and tradition either. But that meant the judge concluded age wasn’t his only obstacle to obtaining a permit. The second plaintiff did have standing because he had completed the required training and was otherwise eligible except for being under 21.

And the court also recognized organizations require the training either on the federal claim, but not the state claim. This is where I think many people are going to disagree with the court. The judge acknowledged that under Bruen, the second amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue. Well, that means the burden then shifts entirely to the government, not the citizen. And the government must prove that its restriction is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That is the test, not public policy, not balancing interests, not whether the judge personally believes the restriction is a good idea.

History, text tradition, or text history tradition. And that’s exactly what the supreme court instructed. Yet the court, this judge, ultimately concluded that historical limitations on miners legal autonomy, combined with later reconstruction era regulations concerning concealable handguns were enough to justify these restrictions. Now here’s something that I think is impossible to ignore, and frankly, I don’t understand how courts continue to brush by it. When the founding generation wanted to ensure the security of this nation, they didn’t look at 18, 19 and 20 year olds and say, sorry guys, you’re too young to have a firearm. They did the exact opposite.

This is part of the history and tradition and it’s a big part. In 1792, just one year after the Second Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the uniform Militia act. And this wasn’t some state law Decades later. This was an act of Congress signed by president George Washington during the founding era itself. And what did it require? It required nearly every able bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to enroll in the militia. But here’s the thing. Congress didn’t say the. Oh yeah, it was. Yeah, I think, yeah, that that would even make the case even stronger.

But I’m pret sure it’s 17. Yeah, I agree. But regardless, it still covers this case that he’s referring to. Right, because an 18 year old and a 19 year old. But yeah, that’s. Yeah, well, let’s, let’s leave it at that. But I like this guy and he, he’s presented some really good stuff here, folks. And this, this takes us back to where were the sheriffs of Connecticut? Why didn’t we get a bunch of sheriffs there say, we are not going to enforce this and we’re not going to let anybody else enforce it because there’s no sheriffs in Connecticut.

You see what happens? So, folks, just as. Just as a reminder, there’s three states that don’t have sheriffs. Alaska and Hawaii never formed the office and the subterfuge behind that. I would really like to delve into the history of what caused that to happen. Because if you were coming in as a new state into the United States in 1959, wouldn’t you want to look around and say, well, who is the first. What’s the oldest law enforcement officer? Who is the first law enforcement officer in America? Well, yeah, of course we got to have sheriffs. Well, they’re elected.

Of course we want people to elect the sheriff. And now when I go to Hawaii in October, I’m going to be saying, you’ve got to get your city councils and your county charters going and have the chiefs of police elected, not appointed. And I want to really hear the excuses from city councils and county commissioners as to why that would be a horrible idea. Allowing the people who actually choose their own representatives in all facets of government. Now, I can’t wait to see that one. But these people I’m going to be talking to, there’s a lot of, especially native Hawaiians that want to put things back to where they’re supposed to be.

And I think that would be a great start is getting the people back their power. In Connecticut, they had sheriffs because they were one of the original 13 colonies. And of course they had sheriffs because it goes way back a thousand years. And of course, everybody has a sheriff. You got to have a sheriff. How can you have law enforcement and law and order and peace in the community? How can you have domestic tranquility without them? You can’t. And so here we go. We learned another horrible lesson today by this great video that Jack found for us that shows what happens when you don’t have sheriffs.

And this is where this comes down to, folks, because West Virginia, Virginia right now has about a dozen sheriffs who are standing against the stupid gun control promoted by this idiot that just won the governor’s race there about a year ago. Well, about nine months ago. So, folks, we love. We love when we get to tell you we told you so. I just put this up for you to just make note of. Well, there’s our friend, your buddy, Mr. Culp. If you take your sheriff, you’ll be like a flying a wind. Well, literally, this has the truth in.

Truth in it. Because you know that’s the last place that you can go to and expect some authority type person to stand up for you or stand in the way of something. And he makes a little short clip here. I can play it if you like, but I just thought I’d put it up. Let’s see what time. Well, we got about four minutes left. Yeah. This is a 59 second. I love. I love Lauren Colt. All right, here we go here with something that every free citizen needs to hear. Your sheriff might be the last real check against state tyranny.

Unlike appointed police chief, sheriffs are elected directly by you. They swear an oath to the Constitution first, not to politicians in Olympia and certainly not to a governor they work directly for we the people. We’ve already seen some sheriffs refuse to enforce unconstitutional mandates. That’s exactly how our system was designed to work. Why do they want to take that power away from your local sheriff and put it into Olympia? When the state tries to push ridiculous rules on your property, your guns, your family, a strong constitutional sheriff stand between you and that overreach. Support your sheriff if they’re doing the right job, hold them accountable if they aren’t, and vote them out of office.

Do you know where your sheriff stands? Thanks for the follows, likes and shares. I appreciate all of you. Stay safe and stay free. Anyway, that’s a pretty good statement. I think we may. We may should have started with that and then gone into Darleaf because that would have been a great segue from that. But great. I’m glad you showed that. Lauren Cole. He’s been a speaker at our events. He’s been coming to our events for over a decade. And he used to be chief of police in Liberty Washington. I think it was Liberty Washington. He’s ran or had run for governor, hadn’t he? Well, he ran for Congress.

Oh, okay. And. And he was ahead in the polls and he lost and he had President Trump support. And so I thought. I thought he was going to get it. And bam. Yeah. Anyway, this was great stuff put together today. This is one of the best shows we’ve had in a long time. I think this is really getting to the foundation of the constitutional sheriff movement. And you’ve had a big hand in that, Jack. And. And I think I’ve had a little bit of a hand in it somewhere. But folks, this really shows why the CSPOA is so important.

Constitutional policing all across this country will be the ultimate solution to every problem we’ve discussed here for the last 10 years, but especially the last 10 minutes. And so thanks for being here again, folks. Do we want CSPA to keep going, to keep flourishing? It’s up to you. We really appreciate your donations. Get more people to be member. Boy, I’ll tell you what, Ian, we need more members from Canada. We’d sure like to have more. And, and I love Rake R e Way R E Y K for Lattenmeyer from Germany. Boy, he. He’s almost as active as you are, Ian.

So appreciate all the people on the show today, appreciate all the members who keep us going. And thank you so much. And everybody, let’s lengthen our stride, put our shoulder to the wheel and make CSPOA bigger, better and faster. So thanks again, Jack. Appreciate all you do. And really glad you got these articles today. And obviously I had the letter ready to go, but you had it ready on your computer, so even better. And thank you for doing that. Well, you’re welcome. And thank you for what you do. And thanks, Stephanie, from, for helping me by gathering some of these articles.

And anyway, we look forward to being with you next week. And we love you. Take care, be safe. And everyone come to the store and buy stuff. That’s. That’s all I have to say. Amen to that. Bye. Bye, everyone. Thank you.
[tr:tra].