Videos tagged with Unconstitutional Law

This video from Guns & Gadgets details the Department of Justice's admission that 18 USC 1715, which bans mailing handguns via USPS, violates the Second Amendment. Despite this admission, the DOJ is attempting to have a lawsuit challenging the law dismissed by arguing they are not currently enforcing it, rather than repealing the law or allowing a court to strike it down. The speaker criticizes this tactic as a way to avoid a definitive ruling, allowing future administrations to reinstate enforcement.

This video discusses a legal strategy by the Department of Justice to uphold gun convictions even when the underlying law is deemed unconstitutional. It highlights the case of Tyree Benson v. United States in Washington D.C., where the DOJ conceded a magazine ban was unconstitutional but sought to preserve convictions tied to it. The analysis emphasizes the potential danger of such legal maneuvers to Second Amendment rights and the importance of legal defense for gun owners.

This video details a significant legal development where the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel has declared federal law 18 U.S.C. 1715 unconstitutional. This law prohibited mailing concealable handguns via USPS. The analysis, presented by Mark W. Smith, emphasizes that this ban infringes upon Second Amendment rights, particularly the ability to transport and receive firearms, as it lacks historical precedent and burdens lawful gun ownership.

This video explains how a court order can prevent a law from being enforced, even if it remains on the books. It details the concept of 'dead laws' and uses the example of AB 2571, which has been permanently enjoined from enforcement by a court, effectively barring the state from enforcing it.

A Ninth Circuit panel has ruled California's 25-year-old law restricting handgun purchases to one per 30 days unconstitutional. This ruling, stemming from a lower court decision, addresses concerns about FFL delays and potential misdemeanor charges for buyers. The decision is seen as a significant win for gun owners, potentially influenced by the Bruin decision, though the Attorney General may seek an en banc review.

This video discusses a significant legal victory for California gun owners, where the 9th Circuit Court overturned Proposition 63's ammunition background check requirement. The court cited the Bruin decision, ruling that requiring background checks for ammunition purchases is unconstitutional and lacks historical precedent. The speaker highlights the financial burden and unjust denials faced by gun owners due to system errors and the potential for this ruling to impact other firearm-related restrictions.

This video details a significant legal challenge against the National Firearms Act (NFA), spearheaded by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and other organizations. The lawsuit argues that the NFA is unconstitutional because its foundation rests on Congress's taxing power, and recent legislation has zeroed out the taxes on most NFA-regulated items, dissolving this constitutional basis. The video highlights the rapid filing of the lawsuit and the potential implications for NFA-regulated firearms.

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 discusses the constitutionality of seat belt laws, prompted by a personal traffic stop in Georgia. The speaker questions whether the government has the right to mandate seat belt use and whether law enforcement officers should be empowered to pull over individuals for non-compliance. The discussion touches on individual liberties and the role of law enforcement in enforcing such statutes.

The Attorney General of California is proposing a 400% increase in background check fees for ammunition, raising it from $1 to $5 per transaction. This change is part of ongoing gun control measures in the state. A comment period is open until October 8th, allowing the public to voice opinions on the proposed fee increase, which critics argue is designed to price people out of firearm ownership and is potentially unconstitutional.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed a lower court order to go into effect, which declared California's 'one in 30' firearm purchase rule unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This ruling effectively stays the enforcement of the law, preventing it from being applied while a full opinion is written. The court's decision hinges on the lack of historical legal precedent for such restrictions on firearm acquisition.

This video provides an expert legal analysis of the ongoing legal battle surrounding Oregon's Measure 114. The speaker, an authority on firearms law, details the permanent injunction against the magazine ban and permit-to-purchase requirements, highlighting the state's procedural missteps in their appeal. The analysis emphasizes how the state's failure to meet filing deadlines could lead to the dismissal of their appeal, leaving the lower court's ruling intact.