Videos tagged with Domestic Violence Protective Orders

This interview with legal scholar Jamie McWilliam delves into two critical Second Amendment issues: the 'common use' standard for firearm regulation post-Bruin and the 'dangerousness' standard for disarming individuals. McWilliam explains the historical origins and legal interpretations of 'common use' stemming from US v. Miller and Heller, and its application in the Bruin framework. He also analyzes the 'dangerousness' standard for firearm prohibitions, discussing its historical basis and its relevance to modern laws like felon disarmament, referencing cases such as Range v. Garland and US v. Rahimi.

The US Supreme Court upheld an 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi, affirming a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing firearms. This ruling clarifies the application of the Second Amendment in relation to domestic abuse, emphasizing that individuals posing a threat can be disarmed. The decision has significant implications for gun safety regulations and the protection of domestic violence survivors, while also influencing ongoing litigation regarding concealed carry laws in states like New York.

This entry synthesizes a detailed legal analysis from William Kirk of Washington Gun Law regarding the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi. The ruling clarifies the constitutionality of disarming individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(8), emphasizing that such restrictions must be historically analogous to past practices and based on a credible threat to physical safety. The analysis highlights the Court's rejection of overly broad interpretations and its focus on specific findings of danger.

This video, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, critically examines the DOJ's legal strategies aimed at disarming citizens, particularly focusing on the 'United States v. Rahimi' case and the implications of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(8). Kirk highlights the DOJ's attempt to expand disarmament criteria from 'dangerousness' to 'irresponsibility,' questioning the constitutional basis and potential overreach of such measures, especially in light of Supreme Court precedents like Heller and Bruen.