Videos tagged with Bruin Standard

A federal court ruling by the DC Court of Appeals found the District of Columbia's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This decision establishes a circuit split, potentially increasing the likelihood of the Supreme Court hearing a case on magazine bans. The ruling emphasizes that magazines in common use for lawful purposes are protected arms.

A September court ruling has significantly redefined gun rights by establishing 10 new rules for federal agencies and states. The decision mandates strict scrutiny for all Second Amendment cases, requiring government restrictions to align with historical text, history, and tradition. Key changes include reinforced interstate travel protections, privacy safeguards against government surveillance, new rules for ammunition sales and FFL compliance, and a mandate for shall-issue carry permits within 30 days. The ruling also limits the scope of red flag laws and strips qualified immunity from officers who knowingly violate Second Amendment rights.

This video analyzes the legal challenge Sakao v. Bondi, where the DOJ argues for the constitutionality of federal handgun purchase bans for adults under 21. The government cites historical tradition and Founding Fathers' views, claiming young adults lacked full rights. Plaintiffs argue this violates Second Amendment rights post-Bruin, seeking to overturn the ban and allow NICS background checks for private transfers for 18-20 year olds. The case highlights a circuit split and is expected to reach the Supreme Court.

A recent September court ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has significantly redefined gun rights by applying strict scrutiny to all Second Amendment cases. This ruling mandates that any firearm restriction must align with the nation's historical text, tradition, and history, effectively invalidating laws not rooted in pre-founding traditions. It introduces 10 new rules that federal agencies and states must follow, impacting carry permits, firearm seizures, privacy, ammunition sales, and FFL operations, with a 90-day compliance window.

This video analyzes a recent district court ruling in Morse v. Raul and Anderson v. Raul, which addressed state bans on suppressor ownership. The court ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that suppressors are not protected arms under the Second Amendment because there's no historical tradition or precedent showing they were considered arms at the founding. This ruling is being appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and its interpretation of the Bruin standard, requiring historical analogs for modern firearm accessories, is a key point of contention.

A Florida appellate court has ruled that the state's ban on open carry of firearms is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing the Supreme Court's Bruin decision. The ruling emphasizes that a blanket ban cannot survive if the plain text of the Constitution protects the conduct and the government cannot demonstrate a historical tradition supporting the restriction. This decision vacates a citizen's conviction and signals a significant shift in Florida's firearm laws, with law enforcement agencies adjusting their enforcement practices.

A federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against California's enforcement of residency requirements for concealed carry permit applications, specifically impacting members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). This ruling, stemming from a lawsuit filed by FPC and Christopher Hoffman, allows non-residents who are FPC members to apply for permits under the same process as California residents, effectively removing a significant barrier to obtaining a CCW in the state. While this does not establish reciprocity for out-of-state permits, it opens a pathway for non-residents to enter California's permitting system.

This video analyzes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' historical and ongoing challenges to Second Amendment rights, highlighting cases like Enuen Vbanta and Yukotake V Lopez. It critiques the court's frequent use of en banc review to overturn panel decisions favorable to gun rights, suggesting a pattern of judicial activism rather than consistent application of constitutional law. The analysis emphasizes the importance of historical tradition and precedent, as mandated by the Supreme Court's Bruin decision, in evaluating firearm regulations.

The Trump administration's DOJ declined to defend the 21-and-over handgun purchase rule, a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This decision stems from a Fifth Circuit ruling that found the law unconstitutional under the Bruin Standard, arguing it infringes on Second Amendment rights without sufficient historical basis. The DOJ's non-appeal creates a circuit split with the Fourth Circuit, likely prompting Supreme Court review and potentially impacting handgun sales regulations nationwide.

This video provides a legal analysis of the 10th Circuit's ruling striking down New Mexico's 7-day waiting period for firearm purchases. The ruling, in Ortega v. Gisham, found the waiting period to be an undue burden on Second Amendment rights, citing its lack of historical tradition and its infringement on lawful acquisition. The analysis highlights how this decision aligns with recent Supreme Court interpretations of Second Amendment rights.

This video details the CRPA's legal challenge against LA County's CCW permitting practices, focusing on delays and unconstitutional application of the Bruin standard. It highlights key court rulings affirming CRPA's associational standing and rejecting LA County's immunity claims, setting precedent for future litigation and pushing for timely permit issuance. The discussion also touches on related settlements with the DOJ and Leverne PD.

An Illinois appellate court ruled 2-1 that the state's Firearms Owner Identification (FOID) card law, requiring a license to acquire and possess firearms, is constitutional. The court's majority stated that historical regulations don't need to be identical to modern licensing laws. The dissenting opinion argued that there's no historical tradition supporting such a broad restriction on firearm possession, especially in the home, and that the state failed to meet the Bruin standard.