Videos tagged with Strict Scrutiny

A September court ruling has significantly redefined gun rights by establishing 10 new rules for federal agencies and states. The decision mandates strict scrutiny for all Second Amendment cases, requiring government restrictions to align with historical text, history, and tradition. Key changes include reinforced interstate travel protections, privacy safeguards against government surveillance, new rules for ammunition sales and FFL compliance, and a mandate for shall-issue carry permits within 30 days. The ruling also limits the scope of red flag laws and strips qualified immunity from officers who knowingly violate Second Amendment rights.

A recent September court ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has significantly redefined gun rights by applying strict scrutiny to all Second Amendment cases. This ruling mandates that any firearm restriction must align with the nation's historical text, tradition, and history, effectively invalidating laws not rooted in pre-founding traditions. It introduces 10 new rules that federal agencies and states must follow, impacting carry permits, firearm seizures, privacy, ammunition sales, and FFL operations, with a 90-day compliance window.

This video discusses a novel constitutional challenge to Pennsylvania's gun laws, specifically focusing on the differential treatment of firearm carry within Philadelphia compared to the rest of the state. The case, Commonwealth v. Sumpter, argues for equal protection under the 14th Amendment, asserting that the right to bear arms is fundamental and thus any law burdening it must survive strict scrutiny. This approach bypasses direct Second Amendment arguments, which have historically faced challenges in lower courts.

The Supreme Court has granted emergency review to the TikTok ban case, which is based on a First Amendment challenge. The 'Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act' is set to ban TikTok nationwide on January 19th, citing national security concerns related to its ties with China. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on January 10th, 2025, to determine if the act violates the First Amendment, with a decision potentially impacting other platforms and free speech rights.

This video details the legal challenges against Maryland's assault weapons ban, focusing on the case of Snope v. Brown. It explains how the Supreme Court's Bruin decision has impacted Second Amendment jurisprudence, rejecting intermediate scrutiny in favor of a text and history test. Gun Owners of America (GOA) has actively supported these legal efforts, filing amicus briefs to advocate for the protection of firearms in common use.

This video analyzes Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's speech on the importance of the First Amendment and its potential implications for Second Amendment rights. It argues that the "tiers of scrutiny" legal methodology, commonly used in First Amendment cases, is a dangerous tool that allows courts to balance away individual rights in favor of government interests. The speaker contends that anti-gun advocates aim to apply this same methodology to Second Amendment cases, which could erode gun rights. The video highlights a perceived shift in how liberal judges and law students view free speech, suggesting future interpretations may be less protective of individual liberties.

This video discusses the legal challenge by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey against St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones's proposed gun control measures. Bailey's letter asserts that the mayor's plans to ban 'military-grade assault weapons,' prevent firearm sales to minors, and address 'ghost guns' violate the Missouri Constitution's guarantee of the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens. The Attorney General emphasizes that such restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny and that existing laws already address criminal activity.

This video analyzes a major Amicus brief filed by the California Legislative Women's Caucus with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Rahimi. The speaker, a constitutional attorney, argues the brief makes legal mistakes by appealing to emotion and misinterpreting the Second Amendment. Key points of contention include the brief's focus on domestic violence orders as life-saving tools, its perceived disregard for the gun as a great equalizer, and its embrace of 'ex parte' orders, which the speaker likens to a 'Pearl Harbor for gun rights' due to their one-sided nature. The analysis also critiques the brief's reliance on late 19th-century laws to justify modern gun control, drawing parallels to Supreme Court rulings that dismiss such historical precedents.

This video details a significant legal victory in Oregon where the state's attempt to implement a new magazine ban and permit scheme was blocked by the Oregon Supreme Court. The court upheld a lower court's ruling, emphasizing state-level constitutional protections and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. The ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, deemed standard capacity, remains ineffective, protecting gun owners from penalties due to the state's inability to process permits. The ruling highlights historical context, noting that high-capacity magazines existed even in the 1800s.

This video details a significant legal victory for gun owners in Illinois, where Judge Scott Webb ruled the state's assault weapon and large capacity magazine ban unconstitutional. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith explains how the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause by creating unjustified distinctions between citizens and failing strict scrutiny. The ruling grants an injunction for plaintiffs, representing a major win for Second Amendment rights in the state.

This video explains a significant legal victory in Illinois where an appellate court upheld a temporary restraining order against the state's 'assault weapon' ban. The ruling, based on the Illinois State Constitution's equal protection clause and the strict scrutiny standard for fundamental rights, found the ban unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. The speaker, Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney, details the legal reasoning and the limited scope of the current order, while also mentioning ongoing federal lawsuits that could offer broader relief.

This video explains how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated its previous ruling in Mitchell v. Adkins, a key challenge to Washington's Initiative 1639. The court is remanding the case for reconsideration based on the new legal standard established in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which rejects intermediate scrutiny for Second Amendment cases. This effectively reopens challenges to I-1639's restrictions on semi-automatic rifle purchases for 18-20 year olds and out-of-state buyers.