Videos tagged with 18 USC 922G

This video provides an in-depth analysis of the Trump Department of Justice's stance on Second Amendment rights, based on insights from the NRA convention. It highlights the DOJ's strategy of targeting 'rogue states' and challenging anti-gun laws, contrasting this with historical federal gun control legislation. The discussion also touches upon the internal dynamics of the DOJ, including the 'deep state' phenomenon and potential challenges within the Solicitor General's office.

This video from Guns & Gadgets discusses the DOJ's recent, quiet restoration of firearm rights to individuals with felony convictions, a process halted by Congress in 1992. Expert analysis covers the legal history, the impact of the *NYSRPA v. Bruen* ruling, and ongoing legal challenges to firearm prohibitions, suggesting a potential shift in Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Trump Department of Justice filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the case of Vincent v. Bondi. The brief argues that the Supreme Court should deny cert, not because Ms. Vincent lacks a strong case for Second Amendment rights restoration, but because an administrative process, established by Attorney General Pam Bondi under 18 USC 925C, now exists for individuals like her to regain their rights. This strategy aims to avoid potentially unfavorable precedent from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of 18 USC 922G concerning non-violent felons and the Second Amendment.

The US Department of Justice has published proposed rules to restore Second Amendment rights to certain non-violent felons, a move predicted by constitutional attorney Mark Smith. This administrative process aims to address individuals prohibited from firearm possession under 18 USC 922G, particularly those convicted of non-violent offenses, by focusing on current dangerousness rather than past convictions. The initiative is framed as a restoration of rights consistent with Supreme Court precedent like the Raheem case and Third Circuit rulings.

This video discusses a significant legislative development concerning veterans' Second Amendment rights. The House Committee on Veterans Affairs voted in favor of the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, which aims to prevent veterans from being prohibited from possessing firearms solely due to the VA appointing a fiduciary for their financial affairs. This action is framed as a win for gun rights, influenced by the Supreme Court's Raheem decision, emphasizing the need for judicial findings of danger before firearm rights can be restricted.

This video discusses the Trump administration's initiative to restore Second Amendment rights to individuals previously deemed prohibited persons under federal law. It details the legal framework, specifically 18 USC 925C, which allows for the restoration of firearms disabilities, and how a congressional budget rider preventing the ATF from using funds for this purpose was circumvented by transferring authority to the Attorney General. The publication of the first list of restored rights in the Federal Register is presented as a significant precedent for potentially millions of Americans.

This video discusses a US District Court ruling in Ohio concerning firearm possession by individuals unlawfully present in the United States. The speaker, a constitutional attorney, argues that 'illegal aliens' are not part of the 'people' as defined by the Second Amendment in Heller, and therefore do not possess Second Amendment rights. He emphasizes that pursuing this legal argument is a waste of time and counterproductive for the Second Amendment community, as it diverts attention from more critical cases that could benefit lawful gun owners.

This video discusses upcoming US Supreme Court decisions on several Second Amendment cases. It details three categories of cases: those concerning the interpretation of 'good moral character' for concealed carry permits (Antonyuk), challenges to 'assault weapon' and magazine bans in Illinois (Herren and Bevis), and cases related to 'prohibited persons' under 18 USC 922G. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court bar member, analyzes the potential implications of these cases for Second Amendment rights.

This video discusses a major Supreme Court filing by the Department of Justice seeking to expand the interpretation of 18 USC 922g, the federal law concerning prohibited persons in possession of firearms. The DOJ aims to leverage a recent narrow win in the Rahimi case to influence future rulings on Second Amendment challenges, particularly concerning 'as applied' challenges to the statute. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and member of the Supreme Court bar, analyzes the DOJ's strategy to potentially disarm broader categories of individuals by avoiding individualized determinations of dangerousness.

This video analyzes the legal strategy behind Hunter Biden's Second Amendment appeal following his conviction for possessing a firearm while being a drug user. It delves into the nuances of 18 USC 922g, discussing potential arguments for an as-applied constitutional challenge based on the lack of violent behavior, contrasting it with cases involving drug trafficking and domestic violence restraining orders. The analysis also touches upon the broader implications for prohibited persons and the potential future direction of Second Amendment jurisprudence.

This video analyzes the legal and factual aspects of the Hunter Biden gun trial, focusing on the intersection of the Second Amendment and federal gun control laws, specifically 18 USC 922g. It discusses the legal arguments surrounding drug use and addiction as disqualifiers for firearm possession, the potential for Supreme Court review of these issues, and the specific evidence presented in Hunter Biden's case, including his memoir and witness testimonies. The analysis also touches upon the possibility of jury nullification in Wilmington, Delaware.

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court bar member, predicts the Supreme Court's future rulings on Second Amendment rights for 'prohibited persons' under 18 USC 922g. He outlines four potential categories for how the court might rule: non-violent felons, violent individuals, drug traffickers, and drug users, with a discussion on due process and red flag laws.