Videos tagged with Founding Era

This video features constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith providing an authoritative analysis of the 'sensitive places' doctrine in Second Amendment law, specifically concerning a case before the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Smith, a published author and award-winning 2A advocate, breaks down the critical debate over which historical period (Founding Era vs. Reconstruction Era) is relevant for interpreting the Second Amendment, highlighting how anti-gun advocates leverage later, often discriminatory, laws. He emphasizes that the Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right and that subsequent history cannot diminish its scope, citing Supreme Court precedent like Espinoza v. Montana.

This video, presented by William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, provides an expert analysis of the Supreme Court case Antonak v. James. It details how the case challenges New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act, enacted after the Bruen decision, and its creation of numerous 'sensitive places.' The discussion highlights the critical legal debate over historical interpretation for the Second Amendment, contrasting Reconstruction-era with Founding-era history, and examines the subjective 'good moral character' standard imposed by New York. Kirk emphasizes the case's potential to significantly impact future Second Amendment jurisprudence.

This video provides an expert analysis of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's ruling in Laura v. Pennsylvania, which affirmed that 18, 19, and 20-year-old Americans possess full Second Amendment rights. The analysis, presented by constitutional attorney Mark Smith, emphasizes the court's reliance on the founding era, specifically the Militia Act of 1792, to establish that young adults were historically understood to be part of 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment. The ruling is highlighted as a significant victory for gun rights, reinforcing the principle that the Second Amendment applies to all adult citizens.

This interview with Professor Robert J. Cottrol delves into the historical interpretation of the Second Amendment, tracing its evolution from English common law through the founding era, the 14th Amendment, and culminating in landmark Supreme Court decisions like Heller and McDonald. The discussion highlights the shift from a collective rights interpretation, often driven by 20th-century gun control movements, back to an individual right focused on self-defense, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

This speech, delivered to legal professionals, breaks down the H.B.R.U.E.N. methodology for interpreting Second Amendment rights. It emphasizes the primacy of the Second Amendment's text and outlines the strict criteria lower courts must apply when evaluating historical analogs for gun control laws. The speaker, a firearms instructor and SEO strategist, highlights common judicial errors and provides a framework for analyzing the 'how' and 'why' of historical regulations to ensure they align with modern constitutional understanding.

This video analyzes a US District Court decision regarding a ban on unserialized firearms in Nevada. The speaker criticizes Judge Miranda Du's findings of fact, arguing she misinterpreted historical regulations and relied inappropriately on expert testimony. The analysis suggests the decision is part of a broader strategy to delay Second Amendment cases and highlights the importance of the upcoming presidential election for the future of gun rights.

This video discusses the legal challenge in Brown v. ATF, focusing on the Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to acquire handguns from Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs). It highlights arguments that current federal law infringes upon these rights by preventing such acquisitions, drawing parallels to historical interpretations of the Second Amendment and the concept of ancillary rights necessary for exercising fundamental rights. The discussion anticipates a potential Supreme Court showdown on this issue.

This video analyzes the legal arguments presented in the May v. Bonta case, specifically focusing on a brief filed by Everytown for Gun Safety supporting California's 'gun-free zone' laws. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues that Everytown's reliance on late 19th-century laws to justify modern gun control is flawed, as constitutional interpretation should focus on the founding era (1791) and the 14th Amendment's adoption (1868). The core argument is that historical laws must affirm, not contradict, the original understanding of the Second Amendment.

This video details a significant Second Amendment victory from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, affirming the right to carry for 18-to-20-year-olds. Expert analysis from Mark W. Smith highlights the ruling's reliance on historical interpretation, particularly the founding era, and predicts future Supreme Court involvement to standardize interpretations across circuits. The decision emphasizes that modern gun control laws must demonstrate historical analogs from 1791 to be constitutional.

This video features Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney and author, dissecting anti-gun arguments by analyzing the historical context of the Second Amendment. Smith emphasizes that modern gun control laws must be justified by historical laws from the founding era, not speculative theories, as mandated by Supreme Court rulings like Heller and Bruen.

This video provides an in-depth analysis of the Second Amendment, dissecting the historical context and legal interpretations of key phrases like 'well-regulated militia' and 'dangerous and unusual.' It emphasizes that modern legal analysis, particularly after the Bruin decision, requires historical evidence dating back to 1791 and focuses on the 'common use' test for protected arms. The speaker argues against the notion that 'well-regulated' implies government control and highlights that discriminatory historical laws are not valid justifications for current firearm restrictions.

This video discusses a significant concession made by the U.S. Department of Justice in the Rahimi Second Amendment case. The DOJ has opted not to rely on historical racist laws as justification for modern gun control measures, a move that narrows the scope of historical analogs available to anti-gun advocates. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and member of the Supreme Court bar, explains the Bruin standard and how this DOJ decision impacts future Second Amendment litigation.