This video breaks down Oregon's new "Community Safety Firearms Act," Senate Bill 243, which has recently taken effect. The content creator highlights that the new laws significantly impact what gun owners can buy, carry, or own. They specifically mention that individuals owning firearms with magazines exceeding ten rounds should pay close attention. The video aims to inform viewers about what is now banned, what remains legal, and the potential legal consequences of non-compliance, urging viewers to act quickly.
This video provides a legal analysis of Duncan v. Bonta, a Supreme Court case challenging California's 10-round magazine limit (Penal Code §32310). It outlines the case's history, including "Freedom Week" and the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision, and explains what the Supreme Court will consider. The discussion focuses on the legal arguments, the "text and history" standard, and the potential impact on lawful gun owners nationwide, emphasizing clear analysis without panic or politics.
This video discusses the US Supreme Court case *US v. Harris*, which challenges federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), prohibiting marijuana users from owning firearms. CRPA President Chuck Michel breaks down the case, its distinction from *US v. Hemani*, and its potential impact on how the government defines "prohibited persons." The discussion touches upon the historical context of gun ownership, legal buyers, the 4473 form, and broader Second Amendment litigation, including *Duncan v. Bonta*. The video also highlights CRPA's advocacy for both law enforcement and cannabis user rights, and the Supreme Court's process for reviewing cases.
This video analyzes the implications of a recent Glock ban in California for gun owners. It aims to clarify what the ban means, who it impacts, and provides essential information for firearm owners to remain compliant with the new regulations. The content covers legal aspects and practical advice to prepare owners for these legislative changes, emphasizing the importance of staying informed about potential impacts on their rights.
This video discusses a recent arrest and charge for "Machine Gun Possession" related to an FRT (Firearm Resetting Trigger). The host theorizes the arrest stemmed from an anonymous tip, possibly from a shooting range. The content aims to explore various aspects surrounding this legal issue. It also includes promotional material for Attorneys on Retainer, American Hartford Gold, and the creator's merchandise and social media channels. The creator explicitly states they are not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, emphasizing educational and entertainment purposes.
This video discusses a new law signed by Texas Governor Abbott that prohibits local governments from establishing gun registries. The legislation effectively ends efforts by cities like Austin to implement local gun control measures such as registries and buybacks. The video highlights the finality of this state-level ban, leaving no room for local workarounds.
This video discusses allegations of a multi-million dollar whistleblower scandal involving the ATF. A whistleblower claims the ATF intentionally mischaracterized employee work, costing taxpayers significantly. The discussion references a Grassley letter exposing whistleblower retaliation at the ATF and includes analysis from Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney and Second Amendment scholar. The content also touches upon broader themes of American liberty and the rights of gun owners, referencing Smith's books and his scholarly work that has influenced legal decisions.
This video discusses a proposed significant tax increase on suppressors, potentially making them unobtainable. It highlights Senator Chris Murphy's proposal to adjust the $200 tax stamp to account for inflation. The description criticizes Republicans for allowing a national gun registry and for actions that could hinder suppressor accessibility. It suggests this is a precursor to future legislation and calls for Republicans to address "what they broke in the One Big Beautiful Bill." The video's description also includes disclaimers about VSO Gun Channel's role as an educational resource and its testing/consulting services.
William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, discusses the implications of HR 1, a reconciliation act that has passed the House and is headed to the President's desk. The new legislation will take effect on October 2nd. The video aims to educate viewers on what changes, if any, HR 1 brings to their Second Amendment rights. It encourages viewers to access the full text of HR 1 and provides resources for staying updated on gun law issues, including signing up for a newsletter and contacting Washington Gun Law for further assistance.
This video discusses potential future losses of Second Amendment rights, suggesting that the current political climate and figures might not be a guaranteed safeguard. The creator speculates on which specific gun rights are most likely to be infringed upon next, inviting viewer input. The video also promotes the creator's merchandise, backup channel, and various support platforms like Patreon and Subscribestar.
This video expresses strong disappointment and a sense of betrayal among gun owners, directly blaming "Pro 2A" Congressmen for failing to advance key legislation. The speaker highlights the potential for bills like the HPA (Hearing Protection Act) and SHORT Act to be included in larger legislative packages but questions the commitment of elected officials to do so. The creator emphasizes that their opinions are personal and not legal advice, but rather commentary on real-world scenarios.
This YouTube video analyzes a significant legal development concerning Second Amendment rights. Federal judges in a Maryland "sensitive places case" appear to be receptive to arguments defending the right to bear arms, challenging existing anti-gun legislation. The video features insights from Second Amendment scholar Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney and author, who provides an in-depth look at the case, its potential implications for gun rights, and the broader legal landscape following the Bruen decision. It touches on the burden of proof in these cases and the historical context of the Bill of Rights.
