Videos tagged with Burden of Proof

Instructor Mike, demonstrating high authority, provides critical legal insights for men regarding communication within personal relationships and its potential impact on legal proceedings, especially concerning family matters. He stresses the importance of understanding legal rights and seeking professional advice before and after having children.

This video provides an expert-level breakdown of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, detailing 10 key changes affecting gun owners nationwide. The analysis, drawing on legal precedent like NYSRPA v. Bruen, explains how the bill aims to standardize concealed carry recognition across states, shifting burdens of proof and establishing liability for wrongful arrests. It clarifies that federal gun-free zones and private property rights remain unaffected.

This video discusses Englishtown, New Jersey's decision to refund 75% of concealed carry permit fees, a move seen as a challenge to state-level fees deemed excessive and potentially unconstitutional. The town's mayor and council adopted a resolution to return $150 of the $200 fee to permit holders, citing the fees as discriminatory and a barrier to self-defense rights. This action is presented as a model for other municipalities to resist what is perceived as government overreach in restricting Second Amendment rights through financial burdens.

This video discusses two proposed bills in Missouri aimed at expanding Second Amendment rights and self-defense protections. Senate Bill 74 seeks to repeal local restrictions on open carry, while Senate Bill 147 would presume reasonableness for those using deadly force in self-defense, shifting the burden of proof to the state. The content critiques anti-gun arguments, emphasizing that these bills do not legalize murder but rather protect law-abiding citizens exercising their right to self-defense.

This video discusses the legal trap gun owners face if they are users of marijuana, a federally controlled substance. Despite recent court rulings like US v. Guill and US v. Paez, which require proof of impairment at the time of arrest, federal law (specifically ATF Form 4473) prohibits unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms. The speaker emphasizes that even with state-level legalization or medical use, federal law remains a significant hurdle, potentially leading to the stripping of gun rights.

This video features constitutional attorney Mark Smith discussing a significant Second Amendment victory in Pennsylvania. An appellate court ruled in favor of Dante Anderson, vacating his firearm possession conviction. The court applied Heller and Bruen standards, placing the burden on the Commonwealth to historically justify the law, which they failed to do. This ruling reinforces the importance of the text-first, burden-shifting methodology in Second Amendment cases.

This video features criminal defense attorney Ian Freedman discussing critical legal aspects of firearm ownership and self-defense in Ohio. He emphasizes avoiding situations, understanding the four elements of self-defense (imminence, proportionality, necessity, not being the initial aggressor), and the distinct burdens of proof in criminal versus civil cases. Freedman also covers crucial post-incident procedures, including limited communication with law enforcement and the prohibition of using deadly force solely for property defense.

This video features William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, discussing the crucial concept of the burden of proof in self-defense cases. He contrasts this with the burden of proof in criminal cases where a general denial is entered, rather than an affirmative defense. The video aims to educate viewers on legal aspects surrounding self-defense and firearm rights, encouraging them to 'arm themselves with education.' It also provides contact information for Washington Gun Law and links to their newsletter, Rumble, and Patreon.

This video features Mark W. Smith, a Constitutional Attorney and author, explaining the critical burden of proof in Second Amendment cases. He details how Supreme Court rulings, particularly NYSRPA v. Bruen, place the onus on the government to demonstrate that modern gun control laws are consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation, rather than on the citizen to prove they are not.

This video explains the legal framework for Second Amendment challenges to modern gun control laws, emphasizing the burden of proof on the government to demonstrate historical analogues. It highlights the Supreme Court's ruling in *Bruin v. New York*, stating that any ambiguity in historical legal interpretations favors the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

This video features Professor Mark Smith discussing the implications of the NYSRPA v. Bruen Supreme Court decision on Second Amendment challenges to modern gun control laws. Smith explains how the Bruen decision, building upon Heller, establishes an originalist methodology for Second Amendment analysis, shifting the burden of proof to the government. He argues that under this framework, many gun laws are presumed unconstitutional unless the government can demonstrate a longstanding historical tradition of similar regulation. The presentation covers the process of applying this methodology and the role of history and tradition in legal challenges.

This video discusses the implications of the Supreme Court's Bruin decision, which shifts the burden of proof to the government to demonstrate historical precedent for gun control laws. It highlights a law review article examining arms bans before 1900, suggesting that such bans were rare and often targeted specific groups like slaves. The analysis emphasizes that the government must now pass a 'smell test' by providing valid historical traditions to justify current regulations, a task that may prove difficult given the historical context.