Videos tagged with Oakland Tactical

This video provides an expert-level overview of pending and potential Second Amendment-related cases before the US Supreme Court for the 2024-2025 term. It analyzes cases like Vanderstock v. Garland concerning 'ghost guns,' Snope v. Maryland on assault weapon bans, and Mexico v. Smith & Wesson regarding the PLCAA. The speaker, a constitutional attorney and author, discusses the strategic importance of these cases, potential outcomes, and the political climate influencing the Court's decisions, offering insights into the future of gun rights litigation.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review for the Oakland Tactical v. How Township case, concerning the right to train with firearms and establish shooting ranges. This decision, which previously saw a 2-1 panel ruling against the right to train at a 1,000-yard outdoor range, sets the stage for a potential Supreme Court appeal. The core issue revolves around whether the Second Amendment encompasses a right to train, and if zoning laws restricting commercial gun ranges infringe upon this right.

This video discusses a 2-to-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Oakland Tactical v. How Township, Michigan. The court ruled against the Second Amendment rights of a plaintiff seeking to establish a 1,000-yard gun range on private property. The host, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, argues the decision is analytically flawed, particularly in its dismissal of the right to train as an ancillary right not explicitly textual, and its failure to shift the burden of proof to the government to justify the restriction.

This video discusses the legal fight in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Oakland Tactical's challenge to Howell Township's restrictions on building a 1,000-yard shooting range. It delves into the concept of ancillary rights, arguing that the right to train with firearms is protected under the Second Amendment, even if not explicitly stated in the text. The discussion draws parallels to First Amendment ancillary rights and historical interpretations of 'infringed' from 1791 dictionaries.