Videos tagged with Bruen

This CRPA TV episode, featuring Chuck Michel, discusses the significant legal developments in the Duncan v. Bonta case concerning California's magazine capacity ban. A recent DC court ruling has created a circuit split, potentially increasing the Supreme Court's likelihood of hearing the Duncan case. The discussion highlights the legal reasoning behind the DC ruling, emphasizing that standard-capacity magazines are considered 'arms' for lawful use.

This video provides an expert-level analysis of current Supreme Court cases challenging 'assault weapon' and magazine bans. It details the relisting of key cases like Viramontes v. Cook County and Duncan v. Bonta, highlighting the potential impact of the recent Benson v. United States ruling that struck down DC's magazine ban. The speaker, an authority on firearms law, discusses the core constitutional questions and potential SCOTUS strategies.

William Kirk of Washington Gun Law analyzes the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling in Benson v. United States, which struck down the city's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The ruling is significant as it affirms that such magazines are 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment due to their ubiquitous common use for lawful purposes, and are not 'dangerous and unusual.' While not a circuit split, this decision sets a strong precedent. Kirk highlights that future cases, like Cheeseman v. Platkin concerning New Jersey's assault weapon ban, could create circuit splits leading to Supreme Court review.

A recent ruling in Benson v. United States declared Washington D.C.'s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds unconstitutional, citing their common use and Second Amendment protection. This decision creates a circuit split with other appellate courts, significantly increasing the likelihood of Supreme Court review, particularly for the pending Duncan v. Bonta case challenging California's similar ban. The ruling emphasizes that arms in common use are protected and historical tradition does not support banning them.

This video details the Firearms Policy Coalition's (FPC) legal challenge against New Jersey's ban on Short Barreled Rifles (SBRs). The lawsuit leverages the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, arguing that SBRs are protected arms in common use with no historical tradition of being banned. New Jersey's defense relies on procedural delays and claims of immunity and lack of standing, rather than historical evidence.

This video discusses a critical legal challenge to Illinois' ban on suppressor purchase and possession, arguing it violates the Second Amendment under Heller and Bruen. The case highlights the state's repeated delays in responding to the appeal, suggesting a strategy to prevent the issue from reaching the Supreme Court. The Seventh Circuit's decision on the state's delay tactics is crucial for the progression of this Second Amendment case.

This video provides an expert-level analysis of recent developments in NFA suppressor restrictions, focusing on the US v. Peterson case and its implications. The speaker, an authority on firearm law, details the Fifth Circuit's ruling, the DOJ's shifting positions, and the case's path to the Supreme Court. Key takeaways include the court's interpretation of the NFA as a 'shall-issue permit' and concerns about this precedent impacting other firearm regulations.

This video provides an expert breakdown of the Second Amendment Foundation's third lawsuit challenging the National Firearms Act (NFA). The lawsuit, Roberts v. ATF, argues that the NFA is unconstitutional on two fronts: Congress may lack the authority to enforce it, and even if it did, suppressors and short-barreled rifles (SBRs) are protected arms under the Bruen decision. The argument hinges on the NFA's original structure as a taxing measure, which has been undermined by recent legislative changes that eliminated the associated taxes.

This analysis from Armed Scholar details significant Supreme Court activity regarding challenges to 'assault weapon' and magazine bans. Multiple cases, including Vermontez v. Cook County and Duncan v. Bonta, have been relisted for Supreme Court conference, indicating potential for a definitive national ruling on the constitutionality of these bans under the Second Amendment. The speaker highlights the 'perfect storm' scenario created by these coordinated cases.

Mark W. Smith, a Constitutional Attorney and member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar, critically analyzes Virginia's House Bill 217. The bill targets individuals under 21 by prohibiting the sale, manufacture, and transfer of 'assault firearms' and large-capacity magazines, with possession being a misdemeanor and leading to a three-year purchasing ban. Smith argues this legislation is an unconstitutional overreach, violating Second Amendment rights as established by Heller and Bruen, asserting that 'the people' includes 18-20 year olds and that historical precedent, like the Militia Act of 1792, supports their right to bear arms.

The DOJ has filed an amicus brief challenging Massachusetts' handgun ban, arguing it violates the Second Amendment by restricting firearms in common use. The case, Granata v. Campbell, focuses on the state's 'approved firearms roster' which prevents sales of handguns not on the list, even if legal elsewhere. This intervention by the DOJ signals a federal stance against state-level bans on commonly owned firearms, citing Supreme Court precedents like Heller and Bruen.

This video discusses a new development in California's firearm purchase regulations, set to take effect in April 2026. Following a legal victory by CRPA in Nguyen v. Bonta, the state has rewritten its law to allow the purchase of up to three firearms every 30 days, replacing the previous one-gun-a-month rule. The presenter highlights that the core of Bruen-era legal arguments is about the state's ability to ration a constitutional right at all, regardless of the specific number. It is anticipated that a new lawsuit will be filed before this updated regulation comes into effect.