Videos tagged with Rahimi

This CRPA TV segment features President Chuck Michel, an expert in Second Amendment litigation, discussing the critical Duncan v. Bonta case. A recent DC court ruling on magazine capacity bans has created a circuit split, significantly increasing the likelihood of the Supreme Court taking up the Duncan case. The ruling emphasizes that standard-capacity magazines are considered 'arms' under the Second Amendment, aligning with previous SCOTUS decisions.

This video from Guns & Gadgets provides an expert analysis of a significant Second Amendment court ruling that declared magazine bans violating the constitutional right to bear arms. The ruling, based on Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi, establishes that commonly owned magazines are protected arms, potentially invalidating bans in multiple states. The host, an expert in Second Amendment law, details the case's background, legal reasoning, and future implications for firearm legislation.

This video provides an expert analysis of the Supreme Court case US v. Hamani, focusing on its implications for Second Amendment rights. The discussion centers on whether federal law can disarm individuals based on their status as unlawful drug users, even if not actively intoxicated, and how this case will shape the interpretation of 'the people' under the Second Amendment post-Bruen. The speaker, an experienced legal analyst, breaks down the DOJ's arguments and the Fifth Circuit's ruling, predicting a potential narrow decision from the Supreme Court.

This video analyzes the Supreme Court's decision to review *US v. Hmani*, a case challenging the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances (18 USC 922 G3). The core question is whether this law violates the Second Amendment, particularly concerning who qualifies as a 'person' protected by the amendment and under what conditions the government can restrict gun rights based on drug use. The speaker notes the unfavorable facts of the plaintiff, Mr. Hmani, and discusses potential implications for future Second Amendment cases, drawing parallels to *Rahimi*.

This video provides an expert analysis from Armed Scholar on a significant legal development concerning suppressors and the NFA. The Fifth Circuit's prior ruling classifying suppressors as not 'arms' has been withdrawn following a dramatic reversal by the Trump DOJ, which now asserts that suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment. The implications for NFA regulations and future legal challenges are discussed.

This video provides an expert analysis of the US v. Morgan case and the Trump DOJ's stance on machine gun possession. The speaker, demonstrating deep legal knowledge, explains how a federal judge in Kansas ruled that machine gun possession charges under 18 U.S.C. 922(o) violate the Second Amendment, rejecting the DOJ's arguments based on Heller, Miller, Bruen, and Rahimi. The analysis highlights the DOJ's appeal and its continued pursuit of anti-gun arguments, urging intervention from Trump administration officials.

This video discusses the 'Worth' case pending before the US Supreme Court, which challenges Minnesota's law prohibiting 18-20 year olds from carrying handguns in public. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, highlights the unusual situation where both Minnesota and the Second Amendment plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari. The core legal argument revolves around whether the Second Amendment, as understood in 1791, protects the right of young adults to carry firearms, referencing historical laws like the Militia Act of 1792.

This video argues against conservative attacks on Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, highlighting her favorable rulings on Second Amendment rights, overturning Roe v. Wade, and striking down affirmative action. The speaker suggests criticisms often stem from misunderstandings of the 'shadow docket' and rapid decision-making processes, contrasting them with her academic background. Attacking Barrett is deemed strategically unwise, as the left aims to influence her, while her record thus far is presented as a significant win for conservatives.

This video analyzes the Brown v. Ohio case, where an appellate court found Ohio's law prohibiting firearm possession while under indictment to be unconstitutional. The ruling emphasizes that under Bruen and Rahimi, disarming individuals requires a conviction and adjudication of danger, not merely an indictment. The analysis extends to the ATF Form 4473, suggesting its indictment-related questions may also be unconstitutional in light of current Supreme Court precedent.

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 speech, delivered to legal professionals, breaks down the H.B.R.U.E.N. methodology for interpreting Second Amendment rights. It emphasizes the primacy of the Second Amendment's text and outlines the strict criteria lower courts must apply when evaluating historical analogs for gun control laws. The speaker, a firearms instructor and SEO strategist, highlights common judicial errors and provides a framework for analyzing the 'how' and 'why' of historical regulations to ensure they align with modern constitutional understanding.

This video, presented by William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, analyzes a significant Florida lawsuit challenging the state's open carry ban. Due to the state's failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, potentially leading to the ban being declared unconstitutional. The analysis delves into the legal arguments, referencing key Supreme Court cases and the implications for Second Amendment rights in public spaces.