Videos tagged with Dangerous and Unusual Weapons

A federal court ruling by the 11th Circuit in United States v. Maxim Alsenat determined that machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. The court's reasoning, based on the 'common use for lawful purposes' standard established in Heller, could have broader implications for other firearm categories. The ruling emphasizes historical regulation and the classification of machine guns as dangerous and unusual weapons.

This video analyzes a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision that ruled stun guns are not 'arms' under the Second Amendment, contradicting Supreme Court precedent in Kitano v. Massachusetts. The speaker, identified as a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court Bar member, argues the court improperly shifted the burden of proof to plaintiffs and misapplied the Bruen methodology by treating legislative facts as adjudicatory facts. The decision is seen as an attempt to circumvent established Second Amendment jurisprudence and is expected to be challenged at the Supreme Court.

This video provides an expert-level analysis of recent Department of Justice (DOJ) legal briefs concerning Second Amendment jurisprudence. The speaker, a constitutional attorney and recognized Second Amendment advocate, argues that certain DOJ lawyers are misinterpreting and misapplying Supreme Court precedent, particularly regarding the 'plain text' versus 'historical analysis' framework established in Heller and Bruen. The analysis focuses on cases involving machine guns and suppressors, highlighting inconsistencies in DOJ arguments and advocating for a more rigorous and intellectually honest defense of Second Amendment rights, even when defending federal gun control laws.

This video analyzes the oral arguments in Caley v. New York City, concerning the Second Amendment protection of stun guns. The speaker, a constitutional attorney, argues that lower courts, including the Second Circuit, are misapplying the Bruin methodology by elevating the 'in common use' test to the plain text level. This misapplication, he contends, improperly shifts the burden of proof to Second Amendment claimants, contrary to Supreme Court precedent established in Heller and Bruin. The analysis highlights the potential for an embarrassing reversal by the Supreme Court if the Second Circuit upholds New York City's ban on stun guns.

This video analyzes a legal brief filed by the state of New Jersey in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, attempting to defend its bans on AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines. The speaker, identified as a constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner, argues that New Jersey's arguments are weak and self-contradictory, particularly in their attempt to dismiss the 'Benson' decision from the DC Circuit. The analysis focuses on the legal precedent set by Heller and Bruen, emphasizing the 'common use' and 'dangerous and unusual' tests for Second Amendment protections.

This video provides a critical update on the Miller v. Bonta challenge to California's "assault weapon" ban, highlighting the potential impact of the United States v. Kittson ruling. The speaker, demonstrating high authority and deep knowledge of Second Amendment litigation, analyzes how the 9th Circuit's interpretation of "dangerous and unusual" weapons and its use of procedural delays could affect the case. The update emphasizes that while new precedent is established, it does not immediately lift existing restrictions, urging reliance on official docket information over rumors.

This video provides an in-depth legal analysis of Second Amendment protections, focusing on the 'dangerous and unusual' and 'in common use' tests as interpreted by the Supreme Court. It breaks down the legal arguments surrounding potential bans on semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, referencing key Supreme Court cases and historical legal traditions. The speaker, identifying as a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court Bar member, aims to equip viewers with sophisticated arguments to defend Second Amendment rights.

This video discusses the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in United States v. Morgan regarding machine gun bans and the Second Amendment. While the court ruled machine guns are not protected, the speaker criticizes the reasoning, particularly the misapplication of the 'in common use' test. The speaker emphasizes that this outcome, though favorable for now, is strategically beneficial as it avoids a potentially detrimental Supreme Court ruling on machine guns.

This video analyzes the legal challenges to federal machine gun possession laws, specifically focusing on the US v. Brown case before the Fifth Circuit. It highlights how recent Supreme Court decisions like Bruin are impacting Second Amendment interpretations, with the DOJ arguing machine guns are not protected arms. The discussion emphasizes the historical tradition test for firearm regulations and the government's burden to prove arms are both dangerous and unusual.

This video discusses the US v. Morgan case heard by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, focusing on whether machine guns are protected by the Second Amendment. It analyzes the legal arguments concerning the Bruin methodology, the 'in common use' test, and the burden of proof on the government to demonstrate that certain firearms are 'dangerous and unusual'. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, emphasizes the importance of understanding legal frameworks and historical precedent in Second Amendment litigation.

This video analyzes the potential legal ramifications of Democrats reinstating suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) under the National Firearms Act (NFA) with a hypothetical $10,000 tax stamp. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues that such a move would likely face successful Second Amendment challenges due to the 'common use' test established in Heller and Bruin. He asserts that these items are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes, making them protected arms that cannot be banned or subjected to prohibitive targeted taxes.

This video analyzes the legal argument in United States of America v. Brown, focusing on the "simplest argument" to deregulate machine guns. It highlights the principle that if an arm is covered by the Second Amendment's plain text, the government must justify its regulation through historical tradition, specifically by demonstrating the weapon is "dangerous and unusual." The argument posits that machine guns, being in common use by hundreds of thousands of lawful citizens, are no longer unusual, thus lacking a historical analog for prohibition.