Videos tagged with Heller Standard

A federal court ruling by the DC Court of Appeals found the District of Columbia's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This decision establishes a circuit split, potentially increasing the likelihood of the Supreme Court hearing a case on magazine bans. The ruling emphasizes that magazines in common use for lawful purposes are protected arms.

This video provides an expert-level analysis of the major lawsuit filed against the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, specifically Jensen v. ATF. The lawsuit, supported by prominent firearms advocacy groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation, argues that the NFA's constitutional basis is no longer valid, particularly concerning suppressors and Short-Barreled Rifles (SBRs). The legal strategy leverages recent Supreme Court precedents like Bruen and Heller, asserting that these items are protected arms in common use and that a 'tax law without a tax' lacks legal standing. The potential impact of this case could lead to the dismantling of federal registration requirements for these firearms.

This video discusses the oral arguments in Ver Mones v. Monreal, a case challenging Cook County's ban on semi-automatic rifles. The speaker, Mark Smith, expresses concern over questions posed by Judge Amy St. Eve, suggesting a potential lack of familiarity with the case's factual and historical record. The discussion highlights the legal standards for Second Amendment cases, contrasting the 'in common use' test from Heller with the Seventh Circuit's 'Bevis' test, and emphasizes the importance of legislative facts and existing case law over expert testimony in such challenges.

This video discusses the Ninth Circuit's en banc review of the United States v. Duarte case, which previously struck down 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as unconstitutional as applied to a felon. The Department of Justice is appealing this decision, arguing that felons are not protected by the Second Amendment and that prior case law like United States v. Vong remains valid post-Bruen. The potential for a circuit split is highlighted as a factor increasing the likelihood of Supreme Court review.

This video discusses the oral arguments in Duncan v. Bonta before the Ninth Circuit, focusing on California's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. It highlights the shift in legal interpretation following the Bruin decision, emphasizing the 'history and tradition' test over 'tiers of scrutiny.' The discussion delves into the critical distinction between 'dangerous and unusual' arms and the potential for reinterpreting this phrase to ban commonly possessed firearms.

A federal court in California has struck down the state's 'one gun a month' purchase law, deeming it unconstitutional. The ruling, based on the Second Amendment and historical legal analysis, found no sufficient historical analogue for such a restriction. This decision, supported by legal experts and organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition, shifts the burden to the state to justify modern gun control measures with historical precedent.

This video provides an expert analysis from William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, on a significant U.S. District Court ruling. The court granted an injunction against firearm bans in government-subsidized housing, citing a lack of historical precedent and aligning with the Heller standard. This ruling allows residents to possess firearms for self-defense in their homes, overturning previous restrictions.

This video discusses a federal court case concerning the Gun-Free School Zones Act and its application to an individual in Montana. It highlights the legal arguments surrounding state exemptions, the Second Amendment, and the interpretation of Supreme Court rulings like Heller and Bruin. The case involves a man carrying a shotgun for self-defense against a former neighbor, raising questions about the scope of federal firearms restrictions versus state rights.

This video provides an in-depth analysis of the United States v. Rahimi case before the Supreme Court, focusing on its implications for Second Amendment rights. The speaker, a constitutional attorney and member of the Supreme Court bar, explains the legal arguments concerning individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders and their right to bear arms. Key discussions revolve around the Bruen methodology, the definition of 'the people' in the Second Amendment, and the concept of preventative justice versus criminal justice.

This video provides an expert legal analysis of the ongoing challenge to Washington State's magazine ban, specifically the case Sullivan v. Ferguson. Attorney William Kirk details the legal strategy, including the motion for summary judgment and arguments based on Supreme Court precedents like Heller and Bruen, emphasizing that standard capacity magazines are protected under the Second Amendment as they are in common use.

This video discusses the Bianchi v. Frosh case challenging Maryland's assault weapon ban, focusing on the legal arguments and the likely trajectory within the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, predicts a 2-1 panel victory for the Second Amendment but anticipates the full court will rehear the case en banc and delay a final ruling, potentially until the Supreme Court's composition changes. The analysis highlights the differing judicial philosophies between conservative and liberal judges regarding constitutional interpretation and their impact on Second Amendment cases.

This video explains the legal framework established by *NYSRA v. Bruin* and *Heller v. DC* for evaluating Second Amendment challenges to gun control laws. It emphasizes that the government must demonstrate a long-standing historical tradition of similar firearm regulations, not just a general historical context or the potential authority to pass such laws. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, breaks down the 'text, history, and tradition' test and highlights how gun control advocates attempt to circumvent it by focusing on broader historical analysis rather than specific, analogous laws.