Videos tagged with Amicus Curiae

This video details a significant pro-Second Amendment development where the Trump DOJ, represented by Mark W. Smith and supported by Pam Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon, has intervened in the Kim Rhode v. Bonta case. The DOJ's motion to participate in the en banc oral argument before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals aims to challenge California's ammunition background check system, arguing that ammunition is a protected 'arm' under the Second Amendment. This strategic move is seen as a key step in establishing broader Second Amendment protections through state-level legal challenges.

This video discusses a complex legal situation in the Southern District of New York involving the indictment of New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The Department of Justice under the Trump administration sought to dismiss the indictment, but Judge Dale Hoe appointed former Solicitor General Paul Clement as amicus curiae to argue against the dismissal. The discussion highlights the strategic implications for Second Amendment law, drawing parallels to potential Supreme Court cases like Range and Reese, and explores the concept of prosecutorial discretion and the role of amicus briefs in shaping legal precedent.

This video, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, critically examines the Chevron Deference doctrine and its implications for administrative agencies like the ATF. It highlights the Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo as a potential turning point that could curb agency overreach. Gun Owners of America and other organizations have filed an amicus brief arguing against Chevron Deference, citing the ATF's reclassification of bump stocks as a prime example of regulatory overreach. The case could significantly alter the balance of power between Congress, executive agencies, and the judiciary.

This video clarifies the legal situation surrounding the RareBreed FRT and similar forced reset triggers, debunking claims that Big Daddy Unlimited declared the FRT a machine gun. It explains that a statement in a legal brief was a lawyer's jab within a patent dispute, not an ATF ruling. The court's invitation for the government to participate is an amicus curiae request to clarify legal ambiguities, not a direct consequence of the brief's content.