Videos tagged with 1868

This video analyzes the Department of Justice's reply brief in the US v. Rahimi case before the Supreme Court. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues that the DOJ is attempting to undermine Second Amendment protections by misinterpreting 'the people' and misapplying historical legal analysis. He highlights the low enforcement numbers for certain federal gun control statutes, suggesting they are used for political rather than public safety reasons.

This video delves into the historical interpretation of the Second Amendment by courts, focusing on when and how 18th and 19th-century legal precedents are considered. It explains that courts primarily look to 1791 history for understanding the original intent of the Second Amendment. However, it highlights a specific scenario where post-Civil War 1868 history might be referenced to inform interpretations. The content features constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, discussing his expertise and past work, including scholarship used by lawyers and quoted by a federal judge.

This video argues that the relevant historical period for interpreting the Second Amendment and assessing the validity of gun control laws is 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The speaker, Mark Smith, contends that anti-gun advocates incorrectly focus on the late 19th century (post-14th Amendment) to find historical analogs for modern gun control. Smith asserts that the Constitution has a single meaning, and historical interpretations from 1868 cannot contradict or restrict the original understanding from 1791.

This video argues that anti-gun advocates are attempting to misinterpret the Second Amendment by focusing on the year 1868 (ratification of the 14th Amendment) instead of 1791 (ratification of the Bill of Rights) when determining the historical context for gun control laws. The speaker, a constitutional attorney, emphasizes that the original understanding of the Second Amendment, established in 1791, is the correct benchmark for evaluating modern gun laws. The 14th Amendment's role is solely for incorporating these rights to apply to states, not for redefining their scope.

This video explains the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade. It contrasts the constitutional basis for the Second Amendment right to bear arms with the lack of explicit constitutional text for abortion rights. The speaker, identified as a constitutional attorney and member of the US Supreme Court bar, details how the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was used to establish abortion rights in Roe v. Wade, and how the Dobbs decision re-evaluated its historical basis.

This video discusses the use of a Remington over-and-under derringer in the film 'Django Unchained,' highlighting a historical anachronism. Larry Zanoff, from ISS Weapons Department, explains that while the gun was requested by director Quentin Tarantino for a specific visual effect, it was not available in the film's 1858 setting, as the model was introduced in 1868. The segment emphasizes the expertise of Hollywood armorers and their role in balancing historical accuracy with storytelling.