Videos tagged with Cooper and Kirk

This video discusses the legal brief filed on behalf of Eva Marie Gardner in a significant Second Amendment case before the US Supreme Court. The case concerns the constitutional right to carry a firearm across state lines, particularly when one has a valid concealed carry permit from their home state. The brief argues that Maryland's conviction of Ms. Gardner for carrying a firearm while traveling through the state, despite having a Virginia CCW permit, is unconstitutional, especially given Maryland's previous 'may issue' licensing regime that was deemed unconstitutional in the Bruin decision.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an ultimatum to Washington State, demanding the repeal of its 'Keep Washington Working Act' within seven days or face lawsuits, criminal charges against officials, and the loss of federal funding. This act prevents local law enforcement from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The DOJ argues this violates federal statute 8 USC 1373, which prohibits states from blocking information sharing with federal immigration officers. This legal battle is seen as a potential test case that the DOJ could leverage against Second Amendment sanctuary laws in other states.

This video discusses the Department of Justice's ultimatum to Washington State regarding its 'Keep Washington Working Act,' a sanctuary law that restricts local law enforcement cooperation with ICE. The DOJ threatens lawsuits, charges, and loss of federal funding if the law is not repealed within seven days. The speaker argues this case could set a precedent for challenging Second Amendment sanctuary laws in other states, as the DOJ aims to establish federal authority over state-level immigration enforcement policies.

This video discusses a significant lawsuit filed in New Jersey challenging the state's ban on suppressors. The lawsuit, brought by organizations like the NRA and SAF, argues that suppressors are protected arms under the Second Amendment and cannot be banned. The complaint highlights that suppressors facilitate armed self-defense, are defined as firearms under the NFA, and are not dangerous or unusual, making their ban presumptively unconstitutional.

This video discusses the James V. Maduros lawsuit challenging California's AB 28, an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. The legal team explains the procedural complexities of tax litigation, including why the case was filed in state court due to federal anti-tax injunction laws and the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies. They highlight the challenges posed by the 'sovereign right' doctrine in tax cases and the strategic decision to include FFLs as plaintiffs to establish standing. The discussion also touches on the difficulty of challenging such taxes compared to clearer constitutional violations and the potential for delays within the administrative process.

The video discusses the Sanchez v. Bon case challenging California's ban on suppressor purchase and possession, currently before the Ninth Circuit. Initially filed pro se, the plaintiff is now represented by CRPA and legal counsel. The case hinges on whether suppressors are considered 'arms' under the Second Amendment, a question previously answered negatively by lower courts and other circuits, often classifying them as accessories.

David Thompson of Cooper and Kirk explains the Bruin methodology for Second Amendment lawsuits, emphasizing the 'text and history' approach. This involves analyzing the plain text of the amendment using 1791 definitions, then requiring the government to present relevant historical analogs from the founding era. The 'in common use' test for modern firearms and accessories is also crucial, with possession considered a lawful purpose. Arguments excluding modern items based on explicit textual absence are deemed fallacious.

This video features an in-depth interview with constitutional lawyer David Thompson regarding the landmark NYSRPA v. Bruen Supreme Court decision. Thompson, who was involved in the case from its inception, explains the historical significance of the ruling, its impact on the right to carry firearms outside the home, and the legal framework it establishes for future Second Amendment challenges. The discussion also delves into originalism, the historical interpretation of the Second Amendment, and potential challenges to gun control measures.

This video discusses a lawsuit filed by the NRA challenging federal and state laws that prohibit law-abiding 18-20 year olds from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers and carrying concealed handguns. Attorney David Thompson explains the legal arguments, focusing on the Second Amendment rights of these young adults, who may serve in the military or law enforcement. The case highlights the distinction between the right to own firearms and the right to purchase and carry them, with legal precedent from Heller and Emerson v. District of Columbia being central to the argument.