Videos tagged with Legislative Facts

This video analyzes a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision that ruled stun guns are not 'arms' under the Second Amendment, contradicting Supreme Court precedent in Kitano v. Massachusetts. The speaker, identified as a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court Bar member, argues the court improperly shifted the burden of proof to plaintiffs and misapplied the Bruen methodology by treating legislative facts as adjudicatory facts. The decision is seen as an attempt to circumvent established Second Amendment jurisprudence and is expected to be challenged at the Supreme Court.

This video discusses the legal battle surrounding Cook County's AR-15 ban, specifically the case Vera Montes v. Cook County before the US Supreme Court. It highlights the Seventh Circuit's ruling upholding the ban under the Bibas standard and critiques this standard as a distortion of Supreme Court precedent. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and member of the Supreme Court Bar, also addresses Cook County's attempt to discredit scholarship cited in the petitioner's brief, particularly articles from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and explains the importance of the 'common use' test within the historical tradition analysis of Second Amendment cases.

This video explains the critical legal distinction between legislative facts and adjudicative facts in the context of Second Amendment litigation. It argues that anti-gun litigants and judges often misapply the concept of adjudicative facts to Second Amendment cases, which should be decided on legislative facts. This tactic is used to unnecessarily prolong cases, increase litigation costs, and delay the enforcement of Second Amendment rights.

This video analyzes a legal brief filed by Cook County, Illinois, in opposition to a motion for summary judgment in the case of Veramontes v. County of Cook, which challenges the county's assault weapon ban. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues that Cook County's brief is weak and relies on flawed legal interpretations. He dissects arguments concerning the 'common use' test, the definition of 'arms' under the Second Amendment, and the distinction between adjudicatory and legislative facts in legal proceedings.