Videos tagged with Pennsylvania Law

A Pennsylvania appeals court ruled Philadelphia's open carry law unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The ruling, in Commonwealth v. Sumpter, found the law unfairly discriminated against individuals in Philadelphia compared to the rest of the Commonwealth. Expert analysis highlights this as a significant victory for Second Amendment rights, leveraging precedents from Heller and Bruen to affirm that constitutional rights apply equally in urban and rural areas, and that gun violence statistics do not override fundamental rights.

This video details the self-defense case of veteran Maurice Bird, who was acquitted of murder charges after shooting an assailant. It highlights the complexities of Pennsylvania's self-defense laws, particularly regarding retreat obligations and the impact of physical disability. The case underscores the importance of the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense.

This video discusses a significant court ruling from Pennsylvania where the Third Circuit denied a request to rehear a case challenging the state's ban on 18-to-20-year-olds carrying firearms. This decision upholds a previous ruling that struck down the ban, reinforcing the Second Amendment rights of this age group. The discussion also references a Fifth Circuit ruling that found federal laws prohibiting FFL sales of handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds unconstitutional, citing historical tradition and the plain text of the Second Amendment.

This video analyzes Pennsylvania Attorney General David Sunday's attempt to seek en banc review of the Laura v. Pennsylvania case, which affirmed Second Amendment rights for 18-20 year olds. The speaker, Mark Smith, argues this legal strategy is politically and legally unsound, citing unfavorable precedent from the Third Circuit and misinterpretations of historical legal standards. The analysis highlights the importance of the plain text of the Second Amendment and the historical context of its adoption in 1791, contrasting it with the AG's reliance on later, potentially biased, historical periods.

This video features constitutional attorney Mark Smith discussing a significant Second Amendment victory in Pennsylvania. An appellate court ruled in favor of Dante Anderson, vacating his firearm possession conviction. The court applied Heller and Bruen standards, placing the burden on the Commonwealth to historically justify the law, which they failed to do. This ruling reinforces the importance of the text-first, burden-shifting methodology in Second Amendment cases.

This video discusses a case in York County, Pennsylvania, where a 13-year-old boy faced criminal charges for having a toy Orbeez gun during a Zoom class. The incident highlights the complexities of zero-tolerance school policies extending to virtual environments and the differing accounts of events between the student, teacher, and law enforcement. The legal ramifications for possessing toy weapons in educational contexts are explored.

This video from Washington Gun Law, presented by William Kirk, an expert on the Second Amendment and gun laws, critically examines the misuse of red flag laws and involuntary mental health commitment procedures. It details a specific incident in Pennsylvania where a state trooper, Ronald Davis, allegedly used these legal tools improperly against his girlfriend, leading to her wrongful detention. The discussion highlights concerns about fabricated evidence, lack of due process, and the potential for constitutional violations, emphasizing the need for procedural safeguards in such legal actions.

This video covers a major legal argument concerning the Second Amendment, specifically focusing on a case heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The case challenges a Pennsylvania law that prohibits 18-20 year olds from possessing firearms in public during declared emergencies. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith provides analysis, drawing on his expertise as a Supreme Court Bar member and author. The content emphasizes understanding the rights protected by the 'four boxes' of American liberty.

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner, discusses key election night watch points with a focus on Second Amendment implications and election integrity. He highlights gubernatorial races in New York and Michigan, the impact of abortion referendums, and legal challenges surrounding mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania. Smith also critiques early voting and post-election ballot counting, emphasizing the need for transparency and public trust in the electoral process.

This video discusses the intersection of medical marijuana use and firearm ownership, specifically referencing Pennsylvania law where obtaining a medical marijuana card can disqualify individuals from possessing firearms. The speaker expresses concern over this restriction, questioning its necessity and comparing it to other medical treatments that do not result in the loss of Second Amendment rights. The discussion highlights the legal complexities and potential conflicts between state and federal regulations regarding marijuana and gun ownership.

This video discusses the Pennsylvania Attorney General's classification of 80% lower receivers as firearms, creating confusion and potential legal challenges for firearm owners. It clarifies federal law, stating that unfinished 80% receivers are not firearms until machined by the end-user, and serialization is encouraged but not federally required. The discussion highlights the difference between individual firearm manufacturing for personal use and manufacturing for profit, which requires an FFL. The video also touches on the role of law enforcement discretion and the potential for political agendas in firearm legislation.

This video discusses the implications of New Jersey's laws extending to Pennsylvania, specifically referencing a case where a gesture was deemed threatening, potentially leading to the loss of gun rights. The speaker expresses concern about upcoming red flag laws in New Jersey and vows to defend their First Amendment rights, even if it means facing legal consequences.