Videos tagged with Domestic Violence Restraining Order

This video provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving concealed carry landscape in the US as of 2026. It highlights the split between permitless and permit-required states, the impact of federal legislation like HR 38, and the critical role of court decisions in defining 'sensitive places' and carry restrictions. The speaker emphasizes the need for diligent research into state-specific statutes and local ordinances to ensure legal carry.

This video discusses how restraining orders, particularly those issued without proper notification or opportunity for the accused to be heard, can impact an individual's ability to obtain or retain a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permit. It highlights the historical lack of due process in restraining order proceedings and the potential for strategic abuse, while also acknowledging recent legislative efforts to address these issues.

This video details the legal implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Range v. Garland, which impacts federal laws prohibiting non-violent felons from possessing firearms. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in light of the Supreme Court's Rahimi decision, ruled that the federal law is unconstitutional as applied to Brian Range, a non-violent felon. This ruling has led to a district court judgment in favor of Mr. Range, potentially setting precedent for future challenges to similar firearm prohibitions.

This video, hosted by constitutional attorney Mark Smith, warns the Second Amendment community against arguing that machine guns are protected arms under the Second Amendment. Smith argues that such an argument, stemming from a ruling by Judge Carlton Reeves, would be a strategic trap. He believes that if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals were to affirm this, the Supreme Court would likely rule against machine gun protection, creating detrimental precedent. Smith emphasizes the importance of focusing on cases like AR-15s and semi-automatic rifles, and correctly applying the 'in common use' test established in Heller and affirmed in Bruen.

This video analyzes the Fifth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Perez Galan, which addressed the constitutionality of 18 U.S. Code Section 922 G8 C2, prohibiting firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Rahimi, found that while C1 was constitutional, the facial challenge to C2 failed because the statute is not unconstitutional in all applications. The case was remanded for an 'as-applied' challenge.

This video provides an expert analysis of the Supreme Court's 8-1 decision in Range v. Garland, which GVR'd the case back to the Third Circuit. The ruling strikes down a federal law prohibiting non-violent felons from possessing firearms as unconstitutional when applied to individuals like Mr. Range, who was convicted of a false statement felony. The expert explains the interplay with the Rahimi case and emphasizes that permanent lifetime bans lack historical justification under the Second Amendment.

This video provides an expert-level analysis of recent US Supreme Court decisions and ATF rulings impacting firearm ownership. It details the implications of the Rahimi decision on domestic violence restraining orders and Second Amendment rights, the Garland v. Cargill ruling on bump stock classification, and the ongoing legal battles surrounding AR-15 pistol braces, particularly the Frack v. Garland case. The discussion highlights the ATF's regulatory actions and the legal challenges to their interpretations.

This video provides an expert-level breakdown of the Supreme Court's 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi and its implications for the Range v. Garland case. The speaker, an experienced firearms instructor and legal analyst, explains how Rahimi upheld federal firearm prohibitions for those under domestic violence restraining orders, while Range challenges the permanent disarmament of individuals with non-violent felony convictions. The analysis highlights the distinction between temporary and permanent disarmament and the ongoing legal arguments regarding historical tradition and the scope of Second Amendment rights.

This video provides an expert-level analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi, focusing on its implications for Second Amendment jurisprudence. Professor Mark Smith breaks down the narrow holding, emphasizing that individuals found by a court to pose a credible threat of physical violence can be temporarily disarmed. The analysis highlights how Rahimi reaffirms the Bruin methodology, rejects interest balancing, and underscores the importance of historical tradition in Second Amendment cases, while also clarifying the limitations on disarming individuals based on non-violent offenses.

The US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Rahimi that federal law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is facially constitutional, provided the order includes a finding that the individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner. The decision upholds the Bruen methodology, emphasizing textual and historical analysis over interest balancing, and clarifies that the term 'responsible citizens' in prior rulings is not a prerequisite for Second Amendment rights. The court also highlighted the temporary nature of such firearm prohibitions.

Hunter Biden's conviction for firearm possession by a drug user is being challenged based on the argument that the law lacks historical tradition, a standard set by the Supreme Court in *Bruen*. Legal experts suggest his appeal may succeed on this specific charge, citing Fifth Circuit precedent in *U.S. v. Daniels*. However, charges related to lying on federal forms may stand. The video also highlights the upcoming Supreme Court decision in *U.S. v. Rahimi* concerning domestic violence restraining orders and firearm possession.

This video analyzes recent US Supreme Court decisions and pending cases, particularly 'Brown v. United States,' to predict future interpretations of Second Amendment rights concerning firearm possession by individuals convicted of certain crimes. The speaker, a constitutional attorney, posits that the Court will likely distinguish between violent and non-violent offenses, suggesting that only those found to be physically violent pose a risk justifying disarmament. The analysis highlights the Court's potential classification of drug trafficking as a violent crime, impacting future gun control legislation.