More States Ban Glocks, 2A Groups Go on the Offensive

FIRST HALF: The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed suit against Illinois and their FOID card requirements, and a Florida representative has filed a bill to repeal the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act, which bans from ownership any fully-automatic weapons made after 1986.

SECOND HALF: Connecticut Communists surreptitiously sneak a ban on Glock pistols (along with many others) in a late-night operation, and Governor Wes Moore signs a Glock ban into law in Maryland,...only to be immediately hit with multiple lawsuits

Transcript

Life has a way of throwing unforeseen events and new opportunities our way. At Glover, Orndorff &
Flanagan Wealth Management, they are dedicated to putting your interests first with a truly
personalized approach. They are there to bring confidence to your investment planning choices.
Whether you need income production for retirement, 401k guidance, long-term investments, or other
financial planning needs, they'll focus on the establishment of a plan tailored to your life's
priorities. For more information, call Bill Orndorff, partner with Glover, Orndorff & Flanagan
Wealth. Management today at 321-344-1202. 321-344-1202.
Investment products and services are offered through Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC.
Member SIPC, Glover, Orndorff, and Flanagan, LLC is a separate entity from Wells Fargo Advisors
Financial Network.
WJS Guns in North Merritt Island is where you need to go for your firearms, ammunition,
accessories, holsters, body armor. fishing tackle, and much more. WJS Guns also offers blue label
pricing for law enforcement officers on multiple firearms brands. And above all,
WJS Guns offers friendly, exceptional service to everyone, especially to us ladies and first-time
gun buyers. For more information, check them out at wjsguns.com. And always tell them Roy sent
you.
Locked, loaded, and loud on the Shooting Straight radio podcast. This is all about firearms with a
heavy, heavy emphasis on the Second Amendment and all things pertaining thereto.
I am Royce, your oh-so-cute, cuddly, huggable, lovable, squeezable host,
saturated with gunshot residue, toxic masculinity, and a faint yet oh-so-wildly tantalizing whiff
of the cologne of my people. Hops number nine. Got a lot to talk about,
as always, today. Also, Christian Starr, if you're listening out there,
slow your butt down in that big old deuce and a half, man. Thanks for being in the audience,
brother. Missed you. Haven't seen you in a while. Come in and see me. All right. The rest of you,
if you want to get a hold of me, shootingstraightradiopodcast at gmail.com.
shootingstraightradioshow at gmail.com, either one of those, and I respond as quickly as I can.
If you message me at night, you might have to wait until in the morning. I turn off my phone at 8 o
'clock every night, and I don't let it disturb me at all. So... than that,
during the day, I usually respond within the hour as long as I'm able to see your email.
So feel free to. Many of you already do, and I really appreciate you doing that. Let's get on into
some things here. You know, in the last episode, we were talking about the state of New Jersey.
issuing subpoenas to all the FFLs because they're suing Glock and they're trying to ban Glocks
there in the state. But it's not just Glock, by the way. It's any brand of pistol that uses a
cruciform-style trigger bar. And Glock is the one that pretty much originated that.
Now, a lot of other... companies have followed suit using that cruciform type trigger bar and they
are claiming that that is what's making it so easy to transform these things into fully automatic
weapons with these chinese giggle switches that are flooding our streets So we're going to be
talking about a lot of that today, probably in the second half of the program, because multiple
other states have jumped on the bandwagon, including Maryland. And we'll be talking about those in
just a little bit. First, let's dive into there is a lawsuit that's being filed in Illinois against
FOID cards, firearm owner identification cards.
is written by, let's see here, Globe Newswire. This is out of Washington,
D.C. from May 19th. And the title of the article is NCLA tells federal court stop Illinois
unconstitutional universal gun possession licensing mandate. So here it is.
The new Civil Liberties Alliance, NCLA, filed the Laurent et al.
v. Kelly lawsuit today, challenging the Illinois Firearm Owner Identification Card,
or FOID Card Act, which requires everyone in the state to get a license from the Illinois State
Police before possessing any firearm or ammunition anywhere for any reason for any length of time.
To obtain the license, Citizens must initiate administrative proceedings with the Illinois State
Police and satisfy the government that they are not disqualified from firearm ownership.
Representing Navy veteran Christopher Laurent, Chicago chef and restaurateur Kim Dalton,
and Liberty advocate Justin Tucker, the NCLA urges the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to declare the Foyd Act violates the second
and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution and stop its enforcement.
I think somebody's been listening to this program because I've been saying on the air since 2014,
all state gun control laws and licensing schemes are direct violations of both the Second and the
Fourteenth Amendment. I've been saying it for years. I've been flabbergasted as to why nobody else
has been saying this. Well, probably other people have been saying it, but not publicly. Back to
the article. Illinois and Massachusetts are the only states that require their residents to obtain
a government license before possessing any type of firearm for any reason.
The 14th Amendment, and here it is, I love this, and I think somebody is listening to this program
up there in high places. The 14th Amendment forbids states...
from depriving anyone of their liberty without due process of law.
Hey, more than that, the 14th Amendment forbids any state to pass any law in the first place that
violates any of the rights enshrined in the Constitution. But what this means is every keeper and
bearer in Illinois that has had to buy a Foyd card just to purchase a gun has had their rights
violated under color of law. And, you know, that's a violation of 18 U.S.C.
242. And all of those scumbags up there that put their heads together to draft this constitutional
abomination are guilty of 18 U.S.C. 241,
that is, conspiracy to commit any violation of rights under color of law.
I think a class action suit by the entirety of the people of Illinois, all keepers and bearers in
Illinois, is definitely in order, especially considering all the lawfare being waged against gun
owners in that state presently. So, back to the article.
Well,
you know, I've said many times, you know, I don't have to get a permit to go to church. I don't
have to get a permit. to speak freely or to worship freely, I like what they're saying here,
to prevent similar licensing restrictions on other constitutional rights.
Because I tell you what, if they can license gun ownership, they can pretty much license any other
right back to the people, if we let them, that is. So the NCLA released the following statements.
Quote, If you have a right to do something, that means you don't need to ask the government's
permission. And if the government has a lawful reason to take away your rights, it has to prove its
case in a court of law. That's how it's supposed to work in America. But that's not how it works in
Illinois.
to get a license to exercise a constitutional right, and they cannot treat people as guilty until
they prove themselves innocent. And that was a statement by Jacob Hubert, who's one of the senior
litigation counsel of NCLA. John Vecchione, also a senior litigation counsel of NCLA,
said this, We don't ask a bureaucrat for permission to speak or worship.
We shouldn't have to ask one before exercising the right of self-defense either.
Well, it's more than the right to self-defense, sir. It's the right to keep, that is, purchase and
own, and bear, that is, carry, arms. Yes, for self-defense,
but also for defense against the government. Mark Chenoweth, president and chief legal officer of
NCLA, said this. This case is not about invalidating all licensing related to guns.
Why not? But requiring people to get permission from the government in advance even to obtain a gun
for hunting or for self-defense in the home is outrageous. The point of having constitutional
rights is that we do not have to get the government's permission to exercise them.
Amen and amen. Now, if this suit is successful, it's going to create a nice precedent for the
killing off of the NFA. I mean, think about it. What does the NFA require in order to purchase an
automatic weapon, a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun or a suppressor?
Getting... the federal government's permission to own something that we have the right to own
already. Yes, we do have the right to own machine guns. We have the right to own mortars.
We have the right to own heavy machine guns like Ma Deuce, that is the M250 caliber.
We have the right to own Bradley fighting vehicles and 20 millimeter anti-aircraft guns for that
matter. So,
but we have to get permission from the government? And many of those weapons are flat out a big,
no, you may not ever own them.
Well, this could set a nice precedent for us. Now,
let's move on to the next article by John Crump from May 25th, writing out of Ammo Land.
It's a publication you should be following online. Great people,
great articles, and definitely fighting for our Second Amendment. Firearm Freedom Act would repeal
Hughes Amendment machine gun ban. Amen. Well, it should. The Hughes Amendment was an abomination,
not to mention the fact that a lot of people... We were suckered into thinking that the Hughes
Amendment actually bans from ownership any machine gun made after 1986.
Well, that's being found to be a big pile of bull fertilizer because that's more of how the ATF was
interpreting it. Uh-huh. Well, that's probably another show. I don't want to go too deep in those
weeds. Let's focus on this article. A new bill has been introduced by Congressman Jimmy Petronas,
a Republican out of my home state of Florida here, in the United States House of Representatives
that would repeal the Hughes Amendment. The bill... the Firearm Freedom Act of 2026,
would undo the restrictions Congress placed on machine guns in 1986.
Well, that's great, but unfortunately, it still keeps the NFA in place.
I mean, why not rather just enforce the Second Amendment as it's written? That would go a lot
further. Anyway. In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act,
or FOPA, which I've referenced here on this program often, a measure intended to reform certain
aspects of federal gun control laws and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Gun control laws, number one, don't need reformation. You're talking about reform certain aspects.
No, it doesn't need reformation. They need eradication. That's the only way to protect the rights
of law-abiding gun owners as they're claiming. Anyway, back to the article. However, during a late
-night session, shocking. That's how Democrats pass a lot of this crap.
I'm pretty sure that's how the NFA was passed also. Democrats added the Hughes Amendment.
This edition effectively closed the machine gun registry and, allegedly, and the transfer of
machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The amendment was passed by a highly contested voice
vote with questions later raised about its procedural legitimacy.
Do some research on the Hughes Amendment and how that did pass. It was total boondoggle.
The new legislation seeks to reverse what many view as an unconstitutional,
that means illegal, stripping of rights from American citizens by once again allowing the legal
transfer and ownership of newly manufactured machine guns by civilians.
Well, my contention here is that the government has no constitutional authority to allow or
disallow. any civilian ownership of any arm related to warfare.
That's just the bottom line. If you read the Second Amendment as it is written, and you read the
writings of the founders, start with Federalist Paper number 46, you will see that they intended
for the people to be armed for warfare. Yeah, not just a little five-shot .22 for personal
defense. Proponents argue that fully automatic firearms are protected under the second amendment
because they are which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms however federal courts have
generally been hostile to challenges against regulations on automatic weapons and here we go the
following is proof that your host here has been right about the dangerous precedence In terminology
set forth by the Heller decision, you know, like dangerous and unusual and in common use.
Here we go. Judges have often cited the Supreme Court's reasoning in District of Columbia v.
Heller 2008.
describing machine guns as dangerous and unusual, weapons not in common use for lawful purposes,
and thereby justifying the ongoing restrictions. Well,
number one, I know I've said this before, I'm going to say it again. Firearms are naturally
dangerous. Okay? They're required to be dangerous.
They can hardly be called a firearm. Unless they were indeed dangerous.
As far as unusual, machine guns are not unusual. Anybody on the planet knows what a machine gun is.
Everybody in the United States, ask them what a machine gun is. They'll tell you. Machine guns are
in common use in multiple federal agencies and in our military.
So, those are fallacious terms.
pissed off beyond measure even hearing them anymore. So, the Heller decision affirmed that the
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense only,
but it also included language noting that certain long-standing prohibitions and regulations on
dangerous and unusual weapons remain permissible. No, they sure as heck do not remain permissible
under the Supreme Law. Lower courts have leaned heavily on this language,
yes they have, to uphold the Hughes Amendment's ban on post-1986 machine guns.
As a result, it is widely considered unlikely that the judicial branch will overturn the
restriction on its own. This judicial pushback underscores why legislative action may be the most
viable path forward. Despite strong support for the Second Amendment rights,
Among many conservatives, the bill faces an uphill battle in Congress. Translation,
we live in an age where those that swore an oath to uphold and defend the supreme law now actively
stand against it and assail it by abusing and overstepping the power that same supreme law granted
them in their positions. Yeah, that's Royce's translation. While most Republicans publicly champion
gun rights, listen to this, A significant number draw the line at machine guns.
Well, then you're not Republicans. You might call yourself one, but if you were truly in favor of
the Republic, you would not only be for machine guns, you would be for Royce's list of war arms.
Yeah, the mortars, the Bradley fighting vehicles, etc. Viewing them as excessively powerful tools,
better suited for military use than civilian ownership. Well,
we the people are a military force. The founders viewed us as such.
They declared us to be such. We the people are the militia,
and the militia are the people. They are the ones that said,
we're a military force. You read again, start in the writings of the founders,
Federalist Paper number 46. Start there. And for Congress...
not uphold this right of the people to own arms for war is actually a dereliction of their
constitutional duties, especially considering all the threats that walk among us that many of them
allowed into our country. Yeah, those treasonous politicians.
Here's Article 1, Section 8, the enumerated powers of Congress. Here's Clause 16,
organizing militias. Congress shall have the power to provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining the militia. Okay, who are the militia? The people.
Who are the people? The militia. And... for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers
and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
So this means that right now, considering all the threats that have invaded this nation,
Congress should be paying. with our tax dollars to organize us into fighting units,
paying to arm us, and paying to train us. That's what their duty is,
according to the Constitution. But they're up there squabbling about, well, I don't know if we can
let them have fully automatic weapons. You're all constitutionally dyslexic,
all of you that think like that up there on Capitol Hill and in every state legislature,
too. Y'all need to reread the Constitution. I know you don't like to because it pricks you to the
heart and tells you that you're in walking violation of it, but I don't care.
Reread it anyway. You're shirking your duties and you're attacking the rights of the people,
and that is absoblipity-blanking-lutely unacceptable. We'll take a brief commercial timeout,
and we'll come back and we're going to talk about... more Glock bands. Don't go anywhere. All of
the listener retention squads are on standby.
Hey guys, let me tell you what. Counter-Strike Tactical is the absolute best little gun store in
Melbourne and proud sponsors of the Shooting Straight Radio podcast. Come visit us at 1008
Strawbridge Avenue and see the custom AR builds by Anthony Anthony Vallejo, owner and combat
veteran, plus AK-47s, handguns, ammo, tactical rifle accessories,
and much more. So stop in and see us, 1008 Strawbridge Avenue, and visit the best little gun store
in Melbourne. Or give us a call, 321-499-4949.
Tell Anthony that Roy sent you. We can't wait to see you. As many of you know, I,
your host, am a firearms instructor, and I run all of my firearms training business through
shootingclasses.com because it simply doesn't make sense to try to do it all myself.
With automated roster creation, when students sign up, Payment processing and automated emailing to
your students, reminding them of the class date and time. It simply doesn't make sense to try to do
all of that by yourself. Get signed up with shootingclasses.com today and take a big load off
yourself. Shootingclasses.com
Norm's Music Shop. Producer and music creator for Shooting Straight Radio Podcast.
I can write and record a personalized music track for your audio or video projects. Do you want a
song for a special occasion? I can do that. For more information, contact Norm's Music Shop at
gmail.com. Let's
create your musical identity. Thank you. Welcome back to the program. We've been discussing some
pretty interesting stuff in the first half of the program, talking about the suits against
Illinois' Foyd Card Act and also a lawsuit to shut down.
and repeal the Hughes Amendment. And now we're looking at more Glock bans,
more states jumping on the we hate Glock bandwagon. And this is, again, I've said this earlier,
this is not just an attack on Glock pistols. There are multiple brands of handguns being affected
by these things. And there's also some lawsuits. going against all of these states that are doing
this stuff now. I tell you what, I'm glad for organizations like Firearms Policy Coalition,
Second Amendment Foundation, definitely Gun Owners of America, and so many others that are pouring
the heat onto all of these filthy little communists who are trying to disarm the people,
and we know why. And multiple lawsuits against little Abigail Spanberger.
And those other little trifecta of totalitarianism there in Virginia.
And so I'm happy to see all that. I'm happy to see us going on the offensive because that's exactly
what needs to happen. The best defense is a good offense. And what I mean by that is,
well, I'll give you a personal example. If you present yourself as a threat to me,
my doctrine. that I adhere to very tightly is if I know that you're about to attack me,
if you're about to strike me, if you're positioning yourself and you're giving off pre-assault
indicators, I am not required by law to go ahead and pour it to you before you're able to get off
one. Nope, I'm not required at all. Matter of fact, most police officers, if you give pre-assault
indicators to them, they're going to go ahead and start beating your butt too.
That's sensibility. I've heard people tell me, well, I'll let you swing first, and I'll never let
anybody swing first if I can help it. I ain't going to let you swing on me when I can go ahead and
take you down. That ain't the way it works. So this is what's going on now in the litigation world
in the Second Amendment, and we're taking the fight to them. Now, they've already swung first.
They've already done their damage. So now we're pouring it back to them. In the first half of the
program, I talked about how the Hughes Amendment was snuck in in a late-night boondoggle,
and there were some procedural questions about that. Well,
that's what happened in Connecticut. It's bad enough that New Jersey was trying to go after Glock
and trying to sue Glock and ban Glock. But now Connecticut, this is from the 7th of this month,
They snuck in a late-night Glock band. Here's the article by Paul Peterson.
legislators jammed through an aggressively and likely unconstitutional,
it's very unconstitutional, ban in Connecticut last night, making the quote-unquote Constitution
State a no-go destination for popular semi-automatic pistols.
Although its actual legal language is ambiguous, as most of these types of laws are,
totalitarians love ambiguity. They think they can just, you know,
make it say whatever they want it to say when they want it to say it. The Connecticut Senate passed
Bill H-5043 by a 22 to 11 margin in a largely party-line vote to ban Glock-type,
note that second word, Glock-type handguns in the state.
The measure passed the state's house in an earlier 86 to 64 vote, which means it now heads to
Governor Ned Lamont. You know he'll sign it. The governor has already called the bill a priority,
making it almost certain to stumble into law. At the core of the new legislation is a broad and ill
-defined ban on, he listed this, any semi-automatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar.
That could be modified to fire full auto, regardless of the manufacturer's intent or the practical
functionality of such a modification. Oh, how come the manufacturer's intent does not matter here?
Intent is usually something that's very necessary to prove in lawsuits and in criminal cases.
Again, I said earlier, this is more than just an attack on Glock pistols. It's an attack on
multiple handgun brands. Now, of course, Glock is the originator of the cruciform trigger bar
design, but also Shadow Systems. They're very well known for their Glock-compatible pattern
pistols. FMK firearms, especially their 9C1 models.
Smith & Wesson. And in their SDVE-9,
SD-9VE, and SD-40VE lines, they have that cruciform trigger bar.
Taurus also does in multiple of their models. Walther striker-fired models.
such as the PPS-M2, the PPQ, the P99, and the PDP all use the cruciform trigger bar.
Springfield, their Hellcat and XD-XDM lines use the cruciform trigger bar.
Ruger, RXM models, Zev Technologies, and there's many others.
What I'm saying here is this is not just an attack on Glock, and I believe these people know this.
It's an attack on all the other manufacturers that use this particular design.
Article continues. In short, the law targets the world's most common semi-automatic handguns in a
tailor-made band. tailor-made to ban over 60% of the world's police and military handgun
preferences. Yeah. Those guns are the safety-proven, functional,
reliable, and popular Glock handguns. Naturally, the design is also very similar to a massive
number of other firearms that have used the same operating system for decades.
In fact, they are among the most common firearms still carried inside law enforcement holsters,
including many of the officers enforcing Connecticut's laws today.
Oh, the irony. Drumming up fear over so-called switch or auto-sear modification for glock-type
pistols, Anti-gun groups applauded the bill's passage.
Of course they do, because to them it's just commie sense. Thus, groups like Moms Demand Action or
the Commie Mommies came out with statements like, Connecticut has sent a clear message to the gun
industry. If you won't take common sense steps to ensure your pistols can't easily be turned into
machine gun capable of firing at a rate of 1,200 rounds per minute with a $25 switch and a
screwdriver, then you have no place in our state's markets.
Okay, so I guarantee you, I don't know if y'all realize this.
I'm sure most of my listeners do.
Any firearm can be modified to fire fully automatic.
Any semi-automatic firearm. That includes the AR-15, AK-47,
and the citizen variants of those. If you really want to modify something to fire full auto,
you can do it. It's not really all that difficult, especially on the AR platform.
And no, I'm not going to tell you how to do it on the air. And no, I haven't made any of my AR-15s
fully automatic for all of the ATF agents listening to my program. But if I was Glock,
my response would be, okay, no problem. then your police officers will no longer be sold Glock
pistols. You are not allowed to own them. We're going to inform all retailers to forbid sales to
law enforcement officers and to their agencies. Yeah, that means Connecticut's state police.
who carry Glock pistols, and their Waterford Police Department, who carries Glock pistols.
Stonington, Meriden, Greenwich, and Hartford departments, and so many others there in Connecticut.
Y'all don't get to use them anymore if those lowly citizens don't get to use them.
Yeah, your fellow citizens. Those are the ones I mentioned, only the ones that have publicly stated
they use Glock pistols, by the way. I'm sure there's plenty more than that. Like I said, Glock has
commandeered more than 60% of the world's police and military markets. The article continues,
notably setting aside the functionality of such a modification. There are already laws making it
illegal to alter common handguns with such devices. So in order...
stop this illegality and these illegal modifications, the only solution in the minds of the braying
jackasses is to ban those particular styles of pistols.
Okay. Furthermore, companies like Glock... already come out against any such modification of their
firearms, and Glock even went so far as to launch an entirely new generation of handguns for nearly
its entire lineup of products to make such illegal modifications even harder.
It didn't help, though. There's already giggle switches on the market for the Gen V and the Gen 6.
Not on the lawful market, of course. Connecticut lawmakers and supporters of the new law were
silent, on any of that information, which was, of course, expected.
And now on to Maryland. Maryland House GOP calls on Westmore to veto bill.
What bill? Well, this bill. This is an article by Hannah Gaskell. Maryland House Republicans are
calling on Governor Westmore to veto legislation that would prohibit the sale of Glock pistols in
the state. and the legislation already has at least one possible legal challenger.
The House Republican Caucus wrote in a letter to Moore on Thursday saying, Instead,
the bill bans law-abiding citizens from purchasing the most popular handgun in the state because
the handgun could be converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic, an action which is already
illegal. Mueller's office did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
That was last Thursday, of course. Sponsored in the House by Delegate Nicole Williams,
a Democrat-Communist from Prince George's, and in the Senate by Senator Sarah Love,
a Democrat-Communist from Montgomery. The bill would ban the manufacture, sale, purchase,
receipt, or transfer of machine gun convertible pistols, including Glocks.
Again, people, this is not just Glocks. Glocks is the scapegoat.
They're going after all guns that have the cruciform trigger bar. People who legally acquired these
firearms... may sell or transfer them to, quote, immediate family members,
including spouses, children, stepchildren, parents, step-parents, siblings, or step-siblings,
as long as they are not prohibited under law from owning a firearm. Machine gun convertible pistols
are semi-automatic firearms with cruciform trigger bars that can easily be turned into machine
guns by attaching or installing or attaching a pistol converter as a replacement for the slide's
backplate. Maryland State Police, who also carry Glock 17s,
would be required to adopt regulations to implement the legislation, including the publication of a
list of banned machine gun convertible pistols. Yes, a list of them,
meaning more than just Glock. Now you see the urgency of this situation.
Violations would be punishable by up to three years in prison or a maximum fine of $5,000.
So the Maryland State Police carrying their Glock pistols are going to go implement a ban on Glock
pistols and any other pistols that have a cruciform-type trigger bar in them.
And they're going to go after their fellow citizens while carrying their Glocks,
trying to implement this ban on Glocks. The irony is so thick here,
you couldn't cut it with a chainsaw. By the way, a quick update here. Governor Moore did sign this
bill into law, and it goes into effect on January 1st of 2027. The article goes on.
In their letter, Republicans argued that pistol converters, also known as Glock switches are
already illegal under state and federal law, that almost any semi-automatic pistol could
theoretically be altered, and that the people who use them in the commission of crimes typically
smuggle. or illegally manufacture conversion devices.
The caucus also asserted that should the bill be signed, it would not stand up to legal scrutiny,
which is inevitably challenged in the courts, when it is inevitably challenged in the courts,
I'm sorry, noting that under the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Heller, firearm regulation must be
consistent with Second Amendment protections and consistent with the historical tradition of gun
regulation in the United States. Well, actually, that was kind of a hodgepodge of Heller and Bruin
put together. The Republicans wrote to Governor Moore, the firearms targeted in this bill are
commonly owned and widely used for lawful purposes by thousands of Maryland residents.
If challenged in court, it will waste the state's time. Well,
the state doesn't care. It's not their money. In an interview with the Daily Record,
Mark Pennick, the president of the Second Amendment advocacy group, Maryland Shout Issue,
called the bill blatantly unconstitutional and said he's planning to challenge the bill if signed.
He said, in fact, the complaint is already written. Well, good.
And we're going to give an update on that in just a second.
In informational testimony submitted to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in February,
Attorney General Anthony Brown's office said it supports the legislation's, quote, intent and
public safety objectives, none of which will ever be realized.
Tiffany Clark, the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Attorney General's office, wrote that
trigger bars and Glock switches, quote, have been increasingly recovered in connection with violent
crimes across Maryland and the nation. So, blippity-blanking what?
Why does that and how does that translate into a general ban on not just Glock pistols,
but probably a good 15, 20 other brands, simply because of the way the trigger bar is shaped?
How about this? How about y'all start arresting the criminals and don't just turn around and let
them right back out? How about you stuff them into the dark hole they belong in and you don't let
them out for a while until they've proven that they can walk safely among society without hurting
anybody? No, we couldn't ask that now, could we? Yeah.
Clark wrote by restricting the commercial transfer of pistols with design features that facilitate
easy conversion to machine guns. This legislation takes a proactive approach to reducing the
availability of firearms that are readily compatible with these dangerous illegal devices.
Okay. So you're talking about a legal device that when an illegal device is attached to it,
it turns the whole thing into an illegal device. Somehow that's the fault of people who own Glock
pistols, or people who sell Glock pistols, or the manufacturers of Glock and Glock-style pistols.
This legislation directly supports our efforts to combat gun violence. Well, what about criminal
violence? How about you start there? To protect Maryland communities and enhance public safety
through evidence-based policy interventions. What evidence? Show your cards.
You don't have any. Now, again, quick update. Governor Moore did sign the bill into law and
immediately the NRA deciding to get back into the fight for the Second Amendment has filed a
lawsuit along with the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.
They filed it directly against Governor Moore. for signing it, as well as against Maryland Attorney
General Anthony Brown, previously mentioned, and the acting superintendent of the Maryland State
Police. Good. Bravo. The complaint is very straightforward,
the way they laid it out. They basically said Maryland has banned commonly owned firearms that are
widely used for self-defense. Yeah, so they're kind of flipping the Heller thing back at them.
And the state's argument that Glock and other such striker-fired pistols can be illegally
converted to fire full auto is literally constitutionally irrelevant.
Yeah, absolutely. How is that relevant? Again, you're saying,
well, because criminals are capable of doing things with these pistols, you,
the rest of the citizens, may not own them. Well, what is that? That is being declared guilty
without due process. That is no presumption of innocence for the general public.
That's no presumption of innocence at all.
I mean, how in the world can you think along these terms and think that you're actually doing
something for public safety? I don't get it. The switches themselves are already prohibited under
federal and state law. So how are you saying that we the people may not own them because bad people
take those guns and do illegal things with them? Well, they're already doing illegal things with
guns anyway. They're not allowed to freaking have them in the first place. So how is it that their
actions are the catalyst for the stripping of our rights? the people of Maryland's rights,
the people of Connecticut's rights, the people of New Jersey's rights. How can you really claim
that? You don't get to say the actions of criminals are,
you know, that that's what you're measuring the free exercise of our rights with.
You don't get to do that. Now, let me just throw something else out there. In the first half of
this program, We talked about they're trying to repeal the Hughes Amendment.
So, what's going to happen to all these laws in all of these states that have tried to ban Glocks
and their like, so to speak, if the Hughes Amendment gets nullified?
That would mean those laws would all become immediately null and void because the people have the
right to own fully automatic weapons. And if they strike down that idiotic Hughes crap and bring a
small fraction of sanity back to all of these laws, that's going to immediately nullify New
Jersey's, Maryland's, uh, the other one there,
I can blanking out of Connecticut's and California's ban on these guys.
Hey, by the way, look for Illinois to do the same thing. I told you in the last episode, they were
going to pile lawsuit upon lawsuit upon lawsuit and try to basically drive Glock into bankruptcy.
But just think if that happens, the Hughes amendment gets struck down and full auto weapons.
built after 1986, which would encompass every Glock hand. gun ever made and all manufacturers
handguns that follow Glock patterns and they'll be sitting on a big pile of nothing and then what
they gonna do then so you stay in contact with your reps you stay armed up you stay strapped or get
clapped and never forget incoming rounds always have the right of way Royce out