Videos tagged with Bruen Standard

This video discusses a new plan by the DOJ concerning a federal gun law challenged by the Firearms Policy Coalition's lawsuit, Elite Precision Customs v. ATF. The law in question is the Interstate Handgun Purchase Ban from 1968. The DOJ, admitting the law is unconstitutional under the Bruen standard, is reportedly seeking to limit the ruling's scope to a specific case in Texas rather than a broad strike-down. The creator expresses concern that this tactic could establish a precedent where constitutional rights, including Second Amendment rights, are only protected for individuals who litigate, rather than applying universally to all Americans.

This video analyzes a significant legal victory for gun owners in California. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the state's ammunition background-check system, citing violations of the Second Amendment due to a lack of historical precedent under the post-Bruen standard. While the ruling is currently on hold pending a potential en banc rehearing, it could have far-reaching implications for firearm acquisition restrictions in the circuit. The description also references a previous ruling striking down California's "one-in-30" firearm purchase rule in a related case.

This video breaks down the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Rhode v. Bonta, which declared California's ammunition background check system unconstitutional. CRPA President Chuck Michel explains how Proposition 63 became a rights-restricting law, why the court labeled it a "background check scheme," and discusses the potential next steps, including en banc review or a Supreme Court appeal. The discussion highlights the ongoing impact of the Bruen decision on Second Amendment law and what this legal victory means for gun rights in California.

This video analyzes the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) arguments in the US v. Rahimi Supreme Court case, focusing on their claims that the Bruen standard makes gun control litigation too difficult. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith breaks down the DOJ's arguments, labeling them as "frivolous." The content highlights concerns from Second Amendment advocates and discusses the specific legal standard set by NYSRPA v. Bruen. The video aims to provide analysis and news for Second Amendment supporters.

This video analyzes a recent development in the Rahimi Second Amendment case involving the Biden administration's Department of Justice. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith discusses the DOJ's legal brief concerning 18 USC 922(g)(8) and its implications for Second Amendment rights. The analysis highlights the DOJ's refusal to rely on historical analogues with potentially racist underpinnings and explores potential future arguments from the DOJ. The content focuses on legal interpretation and its impact on gun rights.

This video analyzes a federal judge's decision in the Antonyuk v. Hochul case, where Judge Glenn Suddaby upheld New York's gun ban in places of worship. The analysis argues that the judge made a critical legal error by applying the wrong historical period when seeking analogues to justify the modern ban. Constitutional attorney Mark Smith explains the basis of this legal mistake and suggests it is fixable, while also touching on broader implications for gun control and Second Amendment rights. The video emphasizes the importance of understanding historical context for gun rights.