Videos tagged with Litigation Strategy

Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney and U.S. Supreme Court Bar member, advises the Second Amendment movement to adopt an incremental litigation strategy, drawing parallels to the gay rights movement's decades-long journey to legal victories. He cautions against rushing cases, particularly those involving machine guns or unsympathetic plaintiffs, to the Supreme Court, as this could lead to unfavorable precedents that weaken existing protections.

This video provides an in-depth legal analysis of the Veramontes v. Cook County case and its potential impact on AR-15 rights. It argues for the US Department of Justice to file an amicus brief supporting the petition for certiorari, emphasizing the need for a Supreme Court ruling on AR-15 protection. The speaker, a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court Bar member, details litigation strategy and critiques lower court standards.

This video discusses the strategic approach of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in defending gun rights through litigation. It outlines three types of cases: strategic, reactive, and opportunistic, emphasizing how SAF selects cases to shape future law and avoid setting negative precedents. The discussion highlights the importance of careful planning, venue selection, and plaintiff criteria in achieving favorable outcomes, noting that the fight for gun rights is ongoing regardless of political administrations.

This video analyzes a Bloomberg Law article that, despite intending to criticize the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), is framed as a glowing endorsement. The FPC is highlighted for its relentless litigation against gun control measures across numerous states, its success in challenging laws, and its effective online presence. The article inadvertently showcases the FPC's strategic approach, its growing influence, and its ability to mobilize support, suggesting the gun control advocates' efforts are backfiring by strengthening the FPC's position and membership.

The 9th Circuit denied an en banc hearing for the May v. Bonta case, indicating a strategic shift towards pursuing final judgments in trial courts before appealing to the Supreme Court. This approach aims to build a stronger factual record, which the Supreme Court prefers for accepting cases. The discussion highlights the ongoing legal battles over 'sensitive places' and the broader evolution of Second Amendment law following key Supreme Court decisions like Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

This video explains the strategic implications of anti-gun groups not filing amicus briefs in the Snope v. Brown Supreme Court case concerning an AR-15 ban. The speaker, Mark Smith, a US Supreme Court bar member, argues that filing such briefs would have paradoxically highlighted the case's importance to the Court, potentially increasing the chances of certiorari being granted. This tactic leverages psychological principles like the Streisand effect and reactance theory.

This video discusses California Governor Gavin Newsom and the state legislature's allocation of $25 million in taxpayer funds for future litigation against the incoming Trump Administration. The discussion, featuring managing attorney Tiffany Chevron, highlights concerns that this funding, initially framed for issues like climate change and immigration, will also be used to challenge Second Amendment rights. The analysis points to California's history of extensive litigation against federal administrations and the potential for this new fund to embolden further legal challenges, impacting ongoing Second Amendment cases.

This interview discusses the legal battles surrounding Second Amendment rights in Oregon and Washington. It highlights the challenges of fighting gun control measures in states with liberal-leaning judiciaries and the strategic importance of federal court cases, particularly those that could reach the Supreme Court. The discussion emphasizes the complexity of legal strategy, comparing it to chess, and the need to avoid setting negative legal precedents.