Videos tagged with May Issue

This video discusses the historical and current implications of firearm rights for US military personnel. It highlights a new directive allowing War Department personnel to carry privately owned firearms on base for personal protection, reversing previous 'gun-free zone' policies. The discussion also contrasts 'shall issue' and 'may issue' states regarding concealed carry permits.

This video discusses the legal brief filed on behalf of Eva Marie Gardner in a significant Second Amendment case before the US Supreme Court. The case concerns the constitutional right to carry a firearm across state lines, particularly when one has a valid concealed carry permit from their home state. The brief argues that Maryland's conviction of Ms. Gardner for carrying a firearm while traveling through the state, despite having a Virginia CCW permit, is unconstitutional, especially given Maryland's previous 'may issue' licensing regime that was deemed unconstitutional in the Bruin decision.

This video provides an expert analysis of the growing trend of Constitutional Carry across the United States, tracing its historical roots and legal evolution. The speaker, identified as an expert with extensive knowledge of firearms law and policy, details the shift from discretionary 'may issue' permits to 'shall issue' and finally to permitless carry. The content highlights key legal precedents like the Bruen decision and discusses potential future legislative changes in states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

This video from Gun Owners of America (GOA) details an ATF denial of an NFA Form 1 application where the applicant cited 'exercising God-given rights' as the reason for making a firearm. GOA argues this subjective denial highlights the NFA process as a 'may-issue' system, contrary to the government's claims of it being 'shall-issue'. The organization is actively litigating to challenge NFA registration requirements for various firearms.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Walford v. Lopez, a Hawaii lawsuit concerning 'sensitive spaces' and the 'vampire clause' related to concealed carry. This case challenges restrictions that effectively ban permit holders from carrying firearms in many public areas. The decision could significantly impact concealed carry rights nationwide and potentially influence other Second Amendment lawsuits.

This video details controversial new concealed carry restrictions implemented in Contra Costa County, California, following the Bruin decision. The county sheriff's office has banned specific firearm types, including single-action handguns, Colt 1911 variants, and derringers. More significantly, they've prohibited essential accessories like laser sights, tactical flashlights, and red dot optics on permitted firearms, deeming them disqualifying. These regulations impact over 1.2 million residents, despite other California counties allowing such equipment after applicants demonstrate proficiency.

This video details a directive from Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to Pennsylvania officials concerning the refusal to issue firearm permits to out-of-state residents. The directive argues this practice violates the Second Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. It highlights specific counties and officials involved, emphasizing the 'shall issue' nature of Pennsylvania's firearm licensing and the unconstitutionality of 'may issue' discretionary systems.

This video discusses the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (HR 38) and its implications for Second Amendment rights. It highlights the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which established 'shall issue' as the minimum standard for concealed carry permits, and contrasts it with 'may issue' systems prevalent in states like California and New York. The bill aims to create a uniform standard for concealed carry recognition nationwide, allowing permits issued in one state to be valid in all others, similar to driver's licenses. Support from various gun rights organizations and the Trump administration is emphasized.

This expert guide breaks down the implications of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision and the proposed HR 38 bill, the Constitutional Carry Reciprocity Act. It explains the differences between 'may-issue,' 'shall-issue,' and 'constitutional carry' states, highlighting how HR 38 aims to create national concealed carry reciprocity. The guide emphasizes the importance of understanding these legal frameworks for firearm owners and encourages civic engagement to support the bill.

This video provides an expert analysis of HR 38, the national concealed carry reciprocity bill, and its potential impact following the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. The speaker, an expert in firearms law, details how the bill aims to establish nationwide concealed carry rights for law-abiding citizens, overriding conflicting state regulations and ensuring Second Amendment protections extend across state lines. The discussion covers various carry permit schemes and the political landscape influencing the bill's passage.

This video presents a novel legal argument against lengthy delays in concealed carry permit issuance, drawing a parallel between the time it takes to register to vote and the time it takes for background checks. The host, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues that if registering to vote takes mere minutes, and background checks can be run quickly by law enforcement, then extended delays in issuing carry permits are unconstitutional. This argument is framed within the context of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which struck down 'may issue' regimes.

The Supreme Court has granted, vacated, and remanded the Antonyuk v. James case, signaling a significant review of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). This action, referencing the Rahimi case, indicates the Supreme Court's intent to re-examine the CCIA's provisions, which were previously challenged for potentially violating Second Amendment rights established in NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case now returns to the Second Circuit for further proceedings.