Videos tagged with Historical Analogs

This video features Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney and author, critically analyzing a legal brief filed by the Tennessee Attorney General. The brief aims to uphold gun-free zones in public parks, a stance Smith argues is not supported by historical precedent or the original public meaning of the Second Amendment. He details the legal arguments and counter-arguments in the Hughes v. Lee case, emphasizing the importance of historical context in Second Amendment jurisprudence.

This video discusses the legal interpretation of 'sensitive places' in relation to the Second Amendment, following the Bruin decision. It highlights how courts are struggling to apply historical analogs to modern gun-free zone designations, with examples from the Ninth and Second Circuits. The core argument is that 'sensitive places' should be historically justified and linked to government provision of security, not arbitrary designations.

This video analyzes the US Supreme Court's decision in Laura v. Pennsylvania, vacating and remanding the case concerning Second Amendment rights for 18-20 year olds. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, explores potential internal Supreme Court debates regarding the historical period for interpreting Second Amendment rights (1791 vs. 1868) and the doctrine of incorporation through the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause versus Substantive Due Process. The discussion highlights how these legal intricacies might influence future Second Amendment cases, particularly contrasting the Laura case with the federal Reese case.

A federal judge ruled New Jersey's ban on AR-15s unconstitutional, citing the 'common use' doctrine under Heller. However, the state's ban on large-capacity magazines was upheld, with the judge arguing they lack historical analogs and are not in common use for self-defense in the same way as firearms. The ruling is limited in scope and faces potential appeals.

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.

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 analyzes the legal strategy of gun control advocates who seek to use late 19th-century gun control laws as historical analogs to justify modern restrictions. Constitutional attorney Mark Smith argues that the Supreme Court, particularly in the Espinoza case, has established that historical laws are only relevant if they confirm the original understanding of a right from the founding era (1791). Laws from later periods, especially if they contradict or undercut the founding understanding, are not valid justifications for restricting constitutional rights like the Second Amendment. The speaker emphasizes that the focus should remain on the historical context of 1791, not subsequent eras.

This video discusses the US Supreme Court case United States v. Rahimi, focusing on arguments presented in amicus briefs regarding historical laws used to justify modern gun control. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, highlights how some briefs cite historical laws with racist and odious foundations, such as those disarming Catholics, Native Americans, and enslaved people, as analogs to support current gun restrictions. The discussion centers on whether these historical precedents are valid justifications for infringing on Second Amendment rights in the 21st century, particularly in the context of domestic violence restraining orders.

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.

This video details how Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation, in conjunction with the Tennessee Firearms Association, submitted an amicus brief in the US v. Daniels case. The brief challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits individuals addicted to or unlawfully using controlled substances from possessing firearms. GOA argues that this law lacks historical analogs and is an unconstitutional, broad prohibition that fails the 'Bruin Standard' by not being rooted in the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

This video analyzes a legal brief filed by Cook County against the Second Amendment in a case concerning their "assault weapon" ban. Host Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues that Cook County's brief is weak, focusing on their misinterpretation of the 'common use' test, the definition of 'arms' as per Heller, and the distinction between adjudicatory and legislative facts in legal challenges. The analysis highlights how the county's arguments contradict Supreme Court precedent and historical legal standards.

This video argues that 'innovative' gun control measures lack historical precedent required by the Bruin decision. It highlights how labeling new laws as 'innovative' by groups like Giffords and Moms Demand Action inadvertently admits their unconstitutionality. Examples like red flag laws, mandatory liability insurance in San Jose, and microstamping technology are discussed as lacking historical analogs.