LAWYER: New AR-15 Ruling Changes Everything

This video is sponsored by Grieve Law, my amazing team of about 30 lawyers. Say thanks and support Tom by leaving an endorsement of his legal educational content: leave us a 5 star Google review! Link takes you to a DIFFERENT google review page for the civil estate planning wing of Tom's firm, leaving a review about our educational legal content helps Tom out a ton and is absolutely free!

https://g.page/r/CdRbdKZPs2twEAI/review

SOURCES:

1. https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D07-09/C:24-3063:J:St__Eve:aut:T:fnOp:N:3571196:S:0

2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-203_5ie6.pdf

3. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

4. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/1/

5. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/680/

🔗 Follow Me For Updates on Everything 2A 🔗

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-grieve-a0247656/

X: https://x.com/AttyTomGrieve

God blessed us with the ability to build and create. 🇺🇸🦅2A forever

Shall not be infringed their can ban deez

If you ban AR15s, what will your Minutemen and Ready Reserve carry?

KEEP DOING WHAT YOU WE LOVE IT!!!!!!!!

Not once has any military in the world ever issued the ar-15. And that point is moot at best. Are we going to ban the m1 grand or any other "military weapons". Subtract suicide (58% because Lefty's want to make that legal just look at Canada) and more people die in car crashes than from guns. Let's ban all Honda Civics and any wheel that fits on them.

It changes nothing….shall not be infringed. It’s your right to defend

All is well that ends well. I would like more on the fast track items you brought up. Your deep dives are legendary on YouTube.

What is often forgotten is the political aspect of the 2nd Amendment. Just as the "hunting & sporting" test for the legitimacy of a firearm is bogus, so is narrowing the scope of The 2A to self-defense. The 2A was included in The Bill of Rights to clearly state that "the security of a free state" depended upon "the right of the people" to have access to the military arms necessary to defend that right. The firearms of the patriots were the technical equivalent of the arms of the government they were fighting at that time. The Second Amendment was always about the right of the people to have the tools needed to defend liberty.

I can promise that I do not know all things and I do not carry any Law Degrees.

Suggestions; Ban all Anti Gun Law Political Personnel. State, Federal, even the Hillbillies that think they know all things, just permanently ban them.

Unusual !! Remember that word Unusual, you will find it be used as a reference in laws and legal court matters.

I love Cicero's quote. It pretty much destroys absurd arguments like "why do you need an AR -15?"

So if IN COMMON USE requires 300MM then in common MISUSE should require the same!

Tom Thank you for your presentation. It matters more ways than most people know about, we also have millions of American citizens being deprived of their Constitutional Rights, and that needs to stop, period! We need more information on this topic. Both the Quotes of the day are very powerful, true and insightful.

I always appreciate how your presentations are always so well reasoned in presenting the subject in a manner we "civilians" or non-lawyers can understand. Please keep up the great job !
BTW, John Lockes' quote is, in my mind, particularly appropriate in our current situation !

Oops, Tom it's "30 rounds or more." Not "more than 30 rounds." Also, thanks for the stats, I'd say that's common use.

if a civil war breaks out we will need these fire arms.

" a firearm can't be banned if it's in common use for a lawful purpose" – OK. Some police forces issue AR-15s with 30-round magazines to carry in their cruisers. They call them PDWs – Personal Defense Weapons. Sounds like "common use for a lawful purpose" right there.

Pritzker bought those judges!

Fun fact, you can look up and purchase the exact weapons used by local and federal law enforcement at most levels. Granted, agencies change weapons and standards periodically.

Of course we lost; can you say 7th circuit court of appeals? Can you say liberal bias? Can you say political corruption? I sure can.

Protect Illinois Criminals Act. Throw it and the corrupt judges and politicians OUT!

They get paid off by pritzker

I couldn’t pick a winner between those 2 great quotes either!

ALL arguments to restrict firearms fail, because the Second Amendment is not a “permission slip” from the government. It’s a restriction AGAINST the government, forbidding it from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. It says “arms.” It doesn’t predicate the type of arms that civilians may have. It doesn’t say, “shall not be infringed, except for military arms.” It says the government can’t Infringed on the right of the People to own and carry (keep and bear) ARMS. That could me anything one could wield as a personal weapon. It’s not limited to firearms.

Just matter of time before this crap comes to every state.

Thanks!

In 1920 Congress – not a court – passed the 18th Constitutional Ammendment outlawing the sale, transportation and distribution of alcohol. The purpose behind the law was to reduce crime and improve public safety. 

The 18th Ammendment became the law of the land. The American public said… screw you.

Without going into the details, the 18th Ammendment was un-enforceable.

The production, transportation, distribution and sale of alcohol could not be stopped. Not even be slowed down.

In 1933 the 18th Ammendment was repealed by the 21st Ammendment. The goverment lost the battle to control alcohol.

Now thinking about guns.

America has been legally armed for more than 250 years. No one has an accurate count of how many arms are in the country. No one has accurate knowledge of where they are. No one has accurate knowledge of who owns them.

Now, in today's politically charged environment, controlling the production, transportation, distribution and sale of firearms would be like trying to control alcohol. It would be un-enforceable. And the consequences would be undesirable.

My opinion – these rulings are nothing but theatre.

There is no evidence that banning magazines holding more than a certain number of rounds, or banning a particular type of rifle or handgun, in any way shape or form reduces violent crime. The politicians who pass crazy laws that infringe on our second amendment rights simply don’t like these types of Firearms, and they are always looking for creative ways to get around the second amendment. They are terribly misguided individuals who think that somehow they are doing something good for Society, when in fact, they are opposing the basic right of self-defense. I hope the Supreme Court will take care of these awful laws once and for all. It’s too bad that the politicians don’t have to pay the Legal bills if they ultimately lose in court. That might provide a disincentive against passing stupid laws that infringe upon our basic bill of rights by

If the AR15 isn't used a lot…and the statistics and FBI data seem to affirm that with regard to crime…then how can the weapon be regarded as a greater danger and thus provide greater government interest which outweighs our 2nd Amendment rights to own it….large capacity mag or not?

It’s the 7th …. We all expected this…. And of course they would do it after SCOTUS took up the 2 cases they did to try and make the split lean more to the gun grabbing side.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." nowhere in the wording does it refer to hunting at all but gives the direct reasoning that it is worded for the explicit purpose of keeping the nation free. If in the time when the 2A was written the fact that the military and the people used the exact same weapons of the time.

Is there any hope that the US Supreme Court will uphold our right to possess AR 15?

It would have been a good video if it was 3 sentences long.

The bowie knife restrictions were created after every single founding father was dead. And they wouldn't have passed Bruen if they had been held against it at the time. So the law they reference wasn't Constitutional either.

Both quotes are excellent, thank you.

Came here for the results of the relevant Supreme Court case. Left because there were no results for the relevant Supreme Court case. 0:17

The Socialist Democratic Establishment wants to disarm all the citizens of America !!! Once they have your guns it will be only time before you will loose all your Rights, Freedom and Liberty !!! Never give up the fight for your Constitutional Rights or you will be living in Socialism !!!

You might think that SCOTUS is tired of all these gun cases and would issue an opinion that all semi auto firearms are legal regardless of magazine capacity or if they are belt fed. All new restrictions on them are null and void. People could print it on cards for dullard cops. It would save everybody a lot of work. The gun grabbers would be out of work.😀

So when it gets to the Supreme Court the lower court BS gets blown away. So why does all these lower court judges violate the second amendment?

SCOTUS needs to settle this unconstitutional BS once and for all!

If the anti-gun argument made by the court is that the state can burden a right when the weapon is "widely misused" then it seems the burden would be on the state to prove that the AR‐15 is, in fact, "widely misused." We all know the statistics do not bear that out.