Videos tagged with Malum Prohibitum

This video discusses a significant Second Amendment victory in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning federal felon-in-possession laws, specifically 18 USC 922(g)(1). The ruling, authored by Judge James Ho, challenges the historical basis for disarming individuals convicted of non-violent offenses, emphasizing that modern 'malum prohibitum' crimes should not automatically lead to lifetime disarmament without historical precedent. The case of Edward Cockerham, disarmed for failing to pay child support, is used as a prime example.

This video delves into the role and power of federal prosecutors, discussing their advantages, the financial burdens of fighting them, and precedents for holding them accountable. The discussion touches upon victimless crimes and the legal distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum. The content is presented by Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney with extensive experience in Second Amendment law and advocacy, as part of the Four Boxes Diner series which aims to provide news and analysis on constitutional rights.

This video discusses "malum prohibitum" crimes and how they pose a danger to a free society, drawing a parallel to the ATF's actions that could result in harm to pets, exemplified by the "Peanut The Squirrel Killed" segment. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith explains the difference between malum prohibitum (wrong because it's prohibited) and malum in se (wrong in itself) crimes. Smith also touches on the importance of legal representation and the "four boxes" of American liberty: the soap box, ballot box, jury box, and ammunition box. The Four Boxes Diner channel focuses on Second Amendment news and analysis from a constitutional lawyer's perspective, referencing Mark Smith's books and legal scholarship.

This analysis by Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney, details how the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA significantly curtails administrative agency authority, impacting the ATF's regulatory power. The ruling emphasizes the need for 'exceedingly clear language' from Congress when granting agencies power over private property, directly challenging ATF regulations on items like bump stocks and pistol braces. The potential reconsideration of the Chevron Doctrine in Loper v. Raimondo further threatens the ATF's ability to redefine firearm classifications and enforce rules carrying criminal penalties, highlighting due process concerns.

This video discusses the potential for a Governor Lee Zeldin to leverage gubernatorial pardon powers to address what the creator views as unconstitutional gun control laws in New York. It highlights Zeldin's election as a potential turning point for gun owners and contrasts an anti-gun legislature with a pro-gun governor. The content delves into the legal distinctions between 'malum prohibitum' and 'malum in se' in relation to gun laws, suggesting that Zeldin could use his executive authority to effectively nullify or mitigate the impact of restrictive firearm regulations.

This video argues against AR-15 bans by framing them as "malum prohibitum" (wrong because it's prohibited) rather than "malum in se" (wrong in itself). It references a Harvard Law & Public Policy article by Mark W. Smith and a decision by Judge Benitez, suggesting that such bans are unconstitutional and hypocritical. The video touches on marijuana laws as another example of "malum prohibitum" and emphasizes understanding the "four boxes" of American liberty to defend rights.