No products in the cart.


Latest 4th Circuit Gun Ban Decision Highlights Legal Danger for Militia-Suitable Arms

Imagine the case being made in 1775 that this man had no right to his gun, and it was in the interests or public safety to take it from him– in other words, Gen. Gage’s position. Now imagine some Tory arguing such a gun was not in common use at the time. These lying arguments are exactly what modern gun-grabbers claim about today’s militia-suitable arms, and our right to keep and bear them.

Rather than send the Maryland firearm and magazine ban case back down to a lower court as ordered by a three-judge panel last month, a majority of the Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case in May, The Washington Post reported. Maryland’s edict “bans the possession or sale of more than 45 types of assault weapons.”

The lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban, enacted by “we must do something” opportunists following Sandy Hook, resulted in what attorney Andrew Branca called a “Big #2A Win,” in that  the panel applied “strict scrutiny,” a standard of legal review requiring a “law must advance not merely any governmental interest, but in particular a compelling governmental interest [and] the law must also be narrowly tailored to actually achieve that interest.”

That’s a much higher bar to meet than “intermediate scrutiny,” which pretty much allows a government to get away with whatever it wants with an unproven “public safety” claim. Under strict scrutiny, Branca noted, “the vast majority of gun laws currently on the books would inescapably be found to be unconstitutional infringements of the Second Amendment, and discarded.”

We reviewed the case last month, noting that positive news aside, a danger still exists until such time as another standard applied to “legality” of weapons – “in common use at the time” – is irrevocably recognized as meaning what a militia would need to fulfill its function:

The function of the militia, defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens must bear arms that are suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles.

Last month’s panel dissenter had no problem twisting his “reasoning” to assert that denying semi-autos to We the People was perfectly consistent with “shall not be infringed.” That’s the kind of double-talk we’d expect from a Clinton appointee.  But what about the rest of the court?

See for yourself.

The Chief Judge is a Clinton man. Plenty of the others were Obama nominees. And just because some were seated by Republicans hasn’t always meant that much, especially keeping Carroll Quigley’s admission in mind:

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

Who thinks the elites want the “rabble” to be able to say “No” and back it up?

What happens from here is, at best, uncertain. Pessimistically, I expect the court to look out for the interests of the state — they must realize what Branca observed about all “gun control” edicts being vulnerable. I also expect the “precedent” to be applied in other districts.

Either way, expect an appeal. And then, as always, all the Supreme Court has to do to let a bad law stand is… nothing. Assuming the ban is upheld, if they don’t hear the case, that decision will stand. If they do take it on, we’re dealing with a 4-4 split with Scalia gone, and that’s best case scenario, assuming John Roberts doesn’t side with Obama and the Democrats again. And who knows how soon we’ll be back to a nine judge court – or who will be picked to replace Scalia?

No one has a crystal ball. That said, prepare for the worst. Especially if the Republicans manage to alienate enough of their base to put Hillary in the Oval Office, assuming she has enough dirt on all the key players to keep from ending up behind bars.



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.



    1. I can’t believe the blackout on this new video information. Absolutely no thoughts or comments?

    2. It’s not much but I keep sharing the video on social media, it has been out a couple of days. I will continue to share it daily. This however does not solve the problem and there are people who an illegal gov have taken illegally and put in prison. This is called tyranny and we the people must start calling it by it’s truthful name, gov tyranny.

  1. The panel of judges reasoning that laws restricting gun ownership must advance a “compelling government interest” is darkly ironic, considering it was PRECISELY the interests of government which the Founders argued the people must always be armed against.

    When the Bill of Rights was being discussed, Elbridge Gerry (fifth vicepresident of the United States) described the Second Amendment as “intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the government.”

    George Mason, considered the father of The Bill of Rights, inquired: “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people!”, he answered his own rhetorical question.

    Tench Coxe, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington, similarly contended: “The militia are the people at large.”

    Richard Henry Lee, another framer of the Second Amendment wrote: “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” “A militia are in fact the people themselves.”

    In an article titled “The History of the Second Amendment,” Professor David Vandercoy of Valparaiso University School of Law, recounts that despite discord over how much power to grant the central government, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were unanimous in the belief that “governmental tyranny was the primary evil people had to guard against,” and they intended the Second Amendment of the Constitution to ward off that “primary evil.”

    Vandercoy relates that when anti-Federalists voiced concern about the great power a central government with a standing army would have at its disposal, in a Federalist Pamphlet, Noah Webster responded: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

    Finally, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton made the argument. According to Madison, any threat coming from the government’s standing army: “would be opposed by a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties.” While Hamilton reasoned: “If representatives of the people, elected under the proposed Constitution, betray their constituents, the people retain the right to defend their political rights and possess the means to do so.”

    Stephen Halbrook, a Constitutional Atrtorney who has won three cases before the Supreme Court, summed the issue in a sentence: “The experiences of the American Revolution proved the right to keep and bear arms serves as the ultimate check that the founders hoped would dissuade persons at the helm of state from seeking to estab-lish tyranny.’”

  2. Don’t forget US vs. Miller, wherein the SCOTUS ruled that arms that have no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia are not protected under the 2A, strongly suggesting military select-fire small arms (with standard 30 rd mags) are within the scope of the 2A. When do I get my M4A1? May all tyrants burn in hell.

    1. RIGHT ON!

      Why do so many “constitutional lawyers” arguing second amendment cases seem to gloss over this fact, even here in Connecticut?

  3. What I worry about most is not that people will not have the guns they want but not have the skills they need to employ them against highly trained teams. The excuse I hear most is how expensive ammo and training is and how time consuming it would be. If you are serious about being free you need to commit time and money to becoming well trained. If nothing else this would be the strongest deterrent to our tyrannical government picking us apart, with no resistance, little by little as they are beginning to do. As we are seeing it’s not hard for well trained agents to kill or arrest people who either don’t intend to fight, are not committed to the fight or do not have the skill sets to fight.

    1. my biggest worry is talk is cheap, will the ones doing the talking have the “NADS” to do the walking.

    2. Hillary, Holder, and Obama have been under investigation for years. The papers don’t publish updates on these investigations so the people forget about them. Whatever happened to Lon Horiuchi of Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas infamy?

    1. Thank you for the link to this article. Absolutely fantastic news! Congressman Jason Chaffetz is one of the best men serving in Congress today. He well understands the issues that people in the rural communities of our country face when dealing with these out-of-control federal agencies which each have their own law enforcement division equipped with AR-15s, sniper rifles and huge amounts of ammo. If they have a SWAT, guess what, they’ll use it, against innocent ranchers to collect a debt, e.g., the Bundy Ranch. I support Rep. Chaffetz 1000%. God bless him for his courage.

      Don’t pay attention to the ridiculous nonsensical comments. The people who post these are paid by Progressive organizations to post comments on news articles to advance the Left-Wing Extremist view and denigrate the true American view. Most if not all don’t even live in the local community the newspaper serves and are not representative of the community’s views. The paid posters receive an email instructing them which articles to go to, with a write-up of what to post. There are articles available online exposing this practice.

      The Left-Wing Extremists want people to think they are the majority in this country, when in fact they are the minority. Those of us who are American citizens, born and raised in this great land, or legally immigrated here because we appreciate freedom and prosperity, are the majority. Those of us who support our Constitution are the majority. And no one pays us true Americans to do a Copy & Paste of written text emailed to us. When we post comments, we each write our own individual thoughts and ideas; we speak from the heart.

  4. Obama and his dirty Regime of progressive NWO communists would do anything to get our weapons use any excuse they can. The whole of the Democrat party is built on progressive communism.

    1. Sharon, I remember when I first heard President George Bush (the senior) first mention “New World Order” and I was sickened to my stomach. It’s not republican v democrat issue.

  5. WGP, very sorry, but one of my associate edtors posted this article you submitted. I have removed it for several reasons, but have saved it and am considering posting it as a stand-alone article. Just need a few days to get all the way through it. I will check back with you after this coming weekend about what I’ll be able to do with it. I don’t want to lose your valuable info, so have saved your article to word file here. But I noticed that it may not be relevant under this article.
    Thanks for sending it in,

    Elias Alias, editor

    1. Dear Elias, Please repost WGP, I started with it yesterday very interesting but to long for the end of the day. I was waiting for morning when I was fresh to come back and read it in full. PLEASE PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE.

      1. @ Elias: If you had trouble with the email, try again… repaired. The sunrise is more reliable than the email 🙂

    2. @ Elias: Thanks! I appreciate it being well vetted. The information fits in and fills some gaps in why and what has happened since Lincoln.

      1. Yup. Am looking forward to reading it all the way through. But I’ve got a road trip coming up and am not sure when I’ll get through your piece. I’ll email you once I’ve done that. Thanks,
        Elias Alias, editor

      2. THANKS ELIAS’ Thanks for your REAL QUICK response.
        I found it to be a very interesting read, I don’t know if it is all true but if it was, why did they give up? It was a great plan and simple. AS in KISS Keep it Super simple. If you could find a couple of hundred dedicated and pro-constitutional people that fit the bill in the article, tie down all of your loose ends and it is RED light time.Again thanks for bringing it home to me so fast
        For the Republic, CB

  6. 10 Things To Know About Nonviolent Struggle

    by Rivera Sun

    1. Nonviolent action is used around the world by people of all classes, races, genders, sexualities, faiths, and political beliefs to accomplish a wide range of goals including changing governmental regimes, ending occupations, expelling foreign invasions, overthrowing dictators, stopping destructive industries, protecting the environment, gaining civil rights, creating economic justice and much more.

    2. Nonviolent action is twice as successful as violent means, works in a third of the amount of time, and incurs a tiny fraction of the casualties as violent conflict.

    3. While researchers don’t know how few people are necessary to successfully use nonviolent action to accomplish their goals, researchers do know that every movement they studied that successfully mobilized four percent of the populace always won.

    4. There are more than 200 methods of nonviolent action, including marches, demonstrations, rallies, boycotts, strikes, sit-ins, blockades, noncooperation, civil disobedience, work stoppages and slowdowns, refusal to provide services and much more.

    5. There are two hands of nonviolence: the hand that says no to injustice, and the hand that says yes to justice. Gandhian nonviolence might refer to these as obstructive and constructive programs. Others refer to the two-fold strategy as “oppose and propose,” or noncooperation with the destructive and cooperation with the beneficial. For example, a movement might work to ban factory farming while simultaneously encouraging the support of local, small farms.

    6. Use acts of protest and persuasion such as speeches, fliers, and marches to spread knowledge of your issue or cause. Use constructive actions such as alternative institutions and parallel governments to build new systems rooted in justice. And, use acts of noncooperation and intervention such as boycotts, strikes, shut-downs, etc. to disrupt the injustice and remove cooperation and consent.

    7. Movements use a series of nonviolent actions to build a campaign around a specific objective. A series of campaigns builds into a set of stepping-stones to accomplish the large goals of the movement.

    8. Nonviolent movements for change seek to remove support from the injustice, and instead place support in systems of justice. These types of support may include material resources, money, human resources, skills and knowledge, authority, communications, public opinion, and intangible factors such as obedience, fear, hope, loyalty, etc.

    9. Unlike violent conflicts which dehumanize people in order to hurt or kill them, nonviolent movements benefit from humanizing everyone involved, including the movement, the opposition, and the bystanders.

    10. Nonviolent struggle is used by ordinary, extraordinary people just like you and me. Find a movement, get involved, start a campaign, participate in an action, build an alternative system, and find ways to make change right where you are.

    1. The Burns, Oregon incident applied much of your post above. Unfortunately, it didn’t turn out well as too few got involved.
      I believe the media had a lot to do with discouraging any chance of a significant involvement of the people. It seems that Oath Keepers was the only source of truth in the entire affair. Had Oath Keepers participated, the end result may have been different.
      I think we all knew in our hearts that the culmination of events would go just the way it did. Now, with the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, I expect there will be an accelerated effort to ban and confiscate all guns, and perhaps all forms of weapons. Those of us having specialized SpecOps training would do well to pass on our knowledge in hand-to-hand combat training, and counter techniques, as by all that is Godly, we may be left with no choice by the November election.

    2. Henk-2…can’t argue against your non-violent position, but since the media and governmental agencies have buried as to the length(time) and scope(law suits) of the non-violent effort to end the tyranny from the BLM and EPA. Would we have even known about their plight if the media wasn’t looking for the ” white homegrown terrorist” or “white people who cling to their religion and guns”? I think not. Lavoy Finicum fell on the sword to finally get the truth out. Most martyrs know that eventually they will die for their just cause, as did Martin Luther King, they just don’t know the time or the place. Lavoy’s sacrifice was not in vain as long as we pick up the ball and move forward to the goal-line. He has left a legacy to us, ” The strength and power of despotism consist wholly in the fear of the resistance” Thomas Paine.

  7. I think I read a little tid-bit in something called the “Federalists Papers”, whatever that is, that the People have the final say over any false judgement by the Supreme Court.

  8. And no full US Supreme Court seated to appeal to now. A tie means the appeals court decision would stand? Justice Scalia was an untimely or timely death for some. depending on which side one stands on. Linda Joy Adams

  9. The right of the people means just that. If the government tries to take them the people should take up their arms and tell the government to come get them. It would be pretty hard if most of the 300 million people are armed and ready!! The constitution means what it says, “The Right of the People”!!!!

  10. It is rather pointless to talk about “militia-suitable arms” without talking about the Militia and their revitalization as the only way to preserve “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. If there are no constitutional Militia in operation, and this state of affairs is lawfully within the power of Congress and the States to continue, then what meaning does “militia-suitable arms” have in practice? If, on the other hand, the Militia were in operation, then essentially any and every type of “Arms” which had any conceivable use by the Militia (which is essentially every conceivable type of “Arms”) would be absolutely protected by the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution, and thus secure against phony judicial “tests” such as “strict scrutiny” and “intermediate scrutiny”, which anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand to be schemes for defeating constitutional rights, not protecting them.

    1. Well said, and the fact of the matter is that while either side can conjure up what this or that means, it is only actions that resolve the issue.
      I have petitioned my state in accordance with its statutes for a position in Militia. I received a reply that I could join the National Guard that we know not to be Militia, nor have its authority.
      It would behoove those in the supposed liberty movement, and so-called pro-2nd community to consolidate their efforts to revitalize the Militia. However, this would require actual commitment, as in boots on the ground, for most. Something that few are willing to perform.

  11. If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about.

    The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarchy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand! The people will get behind those that will take the stand, but we must first seek out those willing to put all they are on the line for the sake of freedom, not necessarily a political future.
    “Perhaps even more disturbing is that the voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers,” reports Rasmussen. “During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.”

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

    Freedom outpost

  12. This will seem off topic at first, but it pertains.

    We live in a system which our leadership starts and spurs on armed insurrection in other countries solely for their benefit. Think Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria…; However in this country we have good folk being arrested and charged with major crimes for having a gun (and never firing a single shot), to defend themselves from that same maniacal Government.

    I just read where Loretta Lynch has discussed with the FBI; ways to charge ‘Climate Deniers’ with a crime. Isn’t that how Nazism was pushed?

    The writers of our Constitution made no restrictions on the term “arms”. They were wise in their choice of words. They could have used the language “right to own rifles or pistols”, however they did not, they used a word that would not restrict the ability of those charged with protecting the Constitution, “we the people”. Furthermore, the fact that Supreme Court Justices are appointed by a president makes their every decision suspect. The fact that the Constitution protects citizens from the government it makes no sense whatsoever that it would be interpreted by a court controlled by that same government.

    1. It’s a simple proposition, Elevengun,

      We go to a courthouse owned by – THE GOVERNMENT
      We sit in a courtroom owned by – THE GOVERNMENT
      Said courtroom is secured by armed personnel paid by – THE GOVERNMENT
      Hearing our case is a judge paid by – THE GOVERNMENT
      We are prosecuted by one lawyer paid by – THE GOVERNMENT
      We are DEFENDED by another lawyer licensed by – THE GOVERNMENT

      Under such circumstances, how could the government lose – EVER?! Is it any wonder that U.S, prosecutors have a success rate exceeding (IMS) NINETY PER CENT?!

  14. That quote from Prof. Quigley is downright frightening. The idea that, effectively, the people should have no say in policy is chilling. Doesn’t this doctrinaire marxist realize that eliminating the ballot box as a way for the people to have input into how policy is made merely increases the likelihood that the ammunition box will be used? Prof. Quigley would remove the the people from having any say at all? If that doesn’t comprise the very essence of Jefferson’s line about something evincing “a design to reduce [we, the people,] under absolute Despotism” I cannot conceive of what would!

    In a perfect world it would not matter with which party a jurist was associated. But then, as Madison put it in Federalist papers #51, ” If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” The problem is that this is NOT a perfect world. Men are not angels nor to such heavenly beings govern us. People associate themselves with whichever political party they find themselves most in agreement. Judges are put in place to interpret the law and to do so as fairly and equitably as possible. Unfortunately, some political philosophies are more conducive to individual liberty than others. When judges interpret the law based upon their own, anti-individual liberty biases, liberty suffers – and so do the people!

  15. Although it is not now illegal to own assault weapons in civilian life it does take a special permit and that permit is rather expensive. However, only fully automatic weapons or those that can be changed from semi to fully automatic with a flip of a switch are considered by the experts, The US military, to be assault weapons. Semi-automatics are not assault weapons.

    Two wars have been fought on American soil over ownership or procession of guns. In both cases those who desired to take those guns lost the war. If government comes after the law abiding American citizen there will be another with the same outcome.

  16. We will be given no quarter and in turn should give none. The constitutionalist has already been equated along side of the sovereign citizen movement and labeled as domestic terrorist above the likes of Islamist terrorist.

    The writing is on the wall for those who do not see clearly enough to realize that the stage is being set for a great purge of people who believe in the constitution and are aware of the demise of our Constitutional Republic. The soap box has been taken away by the domestic enemies with their NDAA, Patriot Act, ect.
    The ballot box has been taken away by the two sided one faced coin of their political party structure.
    Sadly the only box left to us is the cartridge box. Prey for the providence of God to guide us to victory over these inhuman creatures and their minions who wish to cull our country of its loyal citizens and rule over those who were too meek to resist their unholy onslaught of demonic conquest.
    Please remember in the coming days that;

    Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.

    1. …and now we witness a criminal punishment for those who are not on the side of politically motivated climate change, aka global warming, aka catastrophic global warming, aka anthropogenic global warming; follow the green mail. Labeled as Climate Deniers, along with other labels in their long list of those they hate. Once that active politically motivated criminalization is normalized, it will be open season on all political enemies of the state, it being of their choosing. We will be slaughtered by the Stalinist left. I am an old fart, now I believe it will come sooner that I wished.

      1. I am an old fart also and if we do not “win” this one, I really do not want to be around to see the hell that will unfold.

  17. Stop looking for the gov’t to stop oppressing you rights. Either a) accept it or b) do not. Don’t ask the person standing on you neck to stand on one foot.

Comments are closed.