This video discusses the legal challenge to Connecticut's assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban in the case of NAGR v. Lamont. William Kirk of Washington Gun Law analyzes two Amicus briefs that support the petition, focusing on how lower courts have interpreted the 'Common Use Test.' The video encourages viewers to educate themselves on these issues affecting Second Amendment rights and provides links to the briefs and supporting organizations.
This video discusses the Supreme Court case Hanson v. District of Columbia, which could potentially impact firearm bans nationwide. The presenter expresses optimism about the case's strength, citing the D.C. Appeals Court's admission that the 'common use' test is outdated, which they believe sets the stage for nationwide acceptance. The video also includes promotional segments for American Hartford Gold, the creator's social media channels, and merchandise. A disclaimer clarifies that the content is opinion-based and not legal advice, and advises against attempting any demonstrations at home.
This video analyzes Justice Sotomayor's dissent in the Cargill v. Garland case, focusing on a single sentence regarding semi-automatic rifles being "in common use." William Kirk of Washington Gun Law discusses whether this statement inadvertently supports arguments against assault weapon bans by referencing the historical "common use" test. The video encourages viewers to educate themselves on the legal background, mentioning key Supreme Court cases like United States v. Miller, District of Columbia v. Heller, and Caetano v. Massachusetts.
This video analyzes a significant legal development at the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the Illinois "Assault Weapon/Mag" Ban. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith breaks down the arguments presented in the case, focusing on the arguments against the ban and potential outcomes. The discussion includes the "dangerous and unusual" test, the "common use" test, and the broader implications for semi-automatic handguns and Second Amendment rights in general. The content is presented from the perspective of defending Second Amendment liberties.
This video analyzes a Supreme Court brief in the US v. Rahimi case, focusing on a specific legal argument presented by "Second Amendment Law Scholars." The brief, concerning the "common use" test in relation to Bruen precedent, is dissected by Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner. Smith argues that this interpretation is an attempt to erode Second Amendment rights and pave the way for gun bans, specifically mentioning AR-15 bans, by influencing SCOTUS to shift its stance from Heller. The video highlights the legal strategy and potential implications for gun rights.
This video analyzes a significant legal brief filed in Cook County's Viramontes v. Cook County case, where the county is attempting to justify its "assault weapon" ban. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith breaks down the county's arguments and discusses related legal concepts such as the common use test and the definition of "arms." The video also touches upon related topics like gunpowder storage laws and expert testimony in legal proceedings, offering a deep dive into Second Amendment legal challenges.
This video analyzes a Bloomberg article by a Harvard Law Professor that argues the Second Amendment allows for bans on AR-15 style firearms. The analysis contends the professor's legal theories are not aligned with Supreme Court interpretations, particularly referencing the Bruen decision and the US v. Miller case. The content also touches upon the 'common use' test and how it applies to modern firearms, aiming to provide factual counterpoints to the article's claims.
This video discusses a California court ruling, People v. Bocanegra, and its implications for gun owners. It delves into the Second Amendment, the concept of "common use" as applied to firearms, and specifically examines how this test was applied to AR-15s. The discussion also touches upon the legal use of firearms for self-defense and the potential for "hard cases to make bad law." The video features attorney Steven Lieberman and promotes his channel and website, as well as a USCCA membership referral program.
This video discusses a significant legal victory in Illinois where a court has enjoined the enforcement of the "Protect Illinois Communities Act," commonly known as an assault weapon and magazine ban. William Kirk from Washington Gun Law breaks down how the court properly applied legal precedent, including the "common use test" from DC v. Heller, to issue the injunction. The discussion highlights the implications of this ruling for gun owners and emphasizes the importance of staying informed about Second Amendment rights.
This video critiques a Delaware judge's ruling that upheld the state's ban on common semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith analyzes Judge Richard Andrews' opinion, arguing that it misapplies legal precedents like the 'common use' test and cases such as United States v. Staples. The analysis delves into the judge's historical interpretation and its implications for Second Amendment rights, particularly concerning modern firearms and self-defense.
This video features an interview with David Thompson, the attorney whose firm initiated the landmark NYSRPA v. Bruen Supreme Court case. He discusses the implications of the Bruen decision for Second Amendment law in the United States, approximately eight months after its ruling. The conversation delves into how the "plain text" and historical analysis methodologies are being applied in current legal challenges to gun control measures and explores specific legal arguments related to the right to keep and bear arms, including discussions on 'common use' and burden of proof in legal cases. The interview is described as a "very geeky legal discussion."
This video features William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, analyzing the Bevis v. City of Naperville case. The discussion centers on the judge's creation of a new "common use test" to uphold Illinois' assault weapons ban. Kirk argues this new legal interpretation allows for bans on "dangerous" weapons, drawing parallels to Justice Thomas's approach. The video aims to educate viewers on the implications of these legal rulings and encourage them to "arm themselves with education."
