Videos tagged with Facial Challenge

This video analyzes a Department of Justice brief filed in the Eastern District of Missouri concerning the National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations on suppressors and short-barreled rifles. The speaker, a constitutional attorney and Second Amendment advocate, argues the brief makes legally erroneous and intellectually dishonest arguments, misapplying Supreme Court precedent like Heller and Bruin. The analysis focuses on the DOJ's incorrect assertion that the 'common use' test is part of the plain text analysis and their flawed argument regarding facial challenges to the NFA.

This video analyzes a significant legal development where the US Attorney's Office for DC agreed to an en banc rehearing of the Benson case concerning DC's ban on large-capacity magazines. While agreeing the ban is unconstitutional, the office disputes the broad remedy granted by a previous panel, arguing it improperly dismisses charges related to firearm registration and licensing. The analysis delves into the nuances of facial versus as-applied legal challenges and their implications for Second Amendment jurisprudence.

This video, presented by William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, analyzes the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling in Benson v. United States, which struck down the District's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Kirk explains that while significant, the ruling does not constitute a circuit split but reinforces the 'common use' doctrine under the Second Amendment, stating that arms in common and ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, like standard-capacity magazines, cannot be banned unless they are both 'dangerous and unusual'. The decision reversed convictions related to magazine possession and highlighted the importance of plain English interpretation in Second Amendment jurisprudence.

This video discusses the legal momentum building in Second Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly concerning bans on large-capacity magazines. It highlights the significance of the Benson v. United States decision, which found such bans unconstitutional, and how this precedent is being used in new filings for cases like Lefay v. Fairfax County. The discussion emphasizes the 'brick by brick' approach to building Second Amendment precedent.

This video provides a critical analysis of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' unanimous decision upholding California's ban on switchblades longer than two inches. The speaker, demonstrating high authority, explains the legal arguments, the court's narrow focus on concealed carry, and the implications for future Second Amendment litigation. The content is informative and advocates for Second Amendment rights.

William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, critically analyzes the DOJ's stance on the NFA, arguing it contradicts congressional intent and Second Amendment principles. The DOJ's legal arguments, relying on the taxing power and Commerce Clause, are dissected, highlighting concerns about broad federal regulatory authority over firearms. This analysis is presented with expert-level legal and firearms knowledge.

This video explains the legal distinction between facial and as-applied challenges to gun control laws, focusing on the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Lefave v. County of Fairfax. The speaker, a constitutional attorney, argues the Fourth Circuit incorrectly upheld a Fairfax County ban on guns in parks by conflating these legal concepts and effectively rewriting the statute to find a constitutional application, contrary to Supreme Court precedent like Heller.

This video analyzes the Department of Justice's brief to the Supreme Court in the Jamand Rush case, which challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA) regarding short-barreled rifles (SBRs). The speaker, Jared from Guns & Gadgets, critiques the DOJ's self-proclaimed 'most 2A friendly' stance, highlighting their defense of the NFA and reliance on historical precedent like United States v. Miller. The analysis delves into the DOJ's arguments against the Supreme Court taking the case, including the difficulty of facial challenges and the assertion that SBRs are not commonly used for lawful purposes. The video also touches on the potential implications for the Second Amendment if the Supreme Court were to rule on the NFA's constitutionality.

This video, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, analyzes the 'Reese v. ATF' case. It details how a significant Fifth Circuit ruling declaring federal handgun sales bans unconstitutional for 18-20 year olds was undermined by the Department of Justice's proposed judgment. The DOJ's narrow interpretation of the ruling, limiting relief to a specific group and requiring membership lists, has drawn strong criticism from plaintiffs like the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

This video discusses the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's decision in US v. James Gould, which upheld the constitutionality of federal gun control law 18 USC 922G4. The court ruled that individuals involuntarily committed due to mental illness can lose their Second Amendment rights, affirming that historical traditions support disarming those deemed a danger to themselves or others. While the facial challenge failed, the court left open the possibility for as-applied challenges for individuals not currently posing a danger.

This video discusses the lawsuit Padua v. Platkin, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, challenging the state's ban on firearm suppressors. The plaintiffs argue that suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment and that New Jersey's ban lacks historical justification, citing their benefits for hearing protection, noise reduction, accuracy, and recoil management. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the ban is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.

This video discusses the 400% increase in California's ammunition background check fee, raising it from $1 to $5, effective July 1st. It also analyzes the Ninth Circuit's ruling in the Nenv Bonta case, which found California's 'one gun a month' law unconstitutional. The discussion highlights the legal basis for these changes, including the financial unsustainability of the background check system and the application of the Bruen decision's historical tradition standard to firearm regulations.