Videos tagged with US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

This video analyzes a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision that ruled stun guns are not 'arms' under the Second Amendment, contradicting Supreme Court precedent in Kitano v. Massachusetts. The speaker, identified as a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court Bar member, argues the court improperly shifted the burden of proof to plaintiffs and misapplied the Bruen methodology by treating legislative facts as adjudicatory facts. The decision is seen as an attempt to circumvent established Second Amendment jurisprudence and is expected to be challenged at the Supreme Court.

This video analyzes the oral arguments in Caley v. New York City, concerning the Second Amendment protection of stun guns. The speaker, a constitutional attorney, argues that lower courts, including the Second Circuit, are misapplying the Bruin methodology by elevating the 'in common use' test to the plain text level. This misapplication, he contends, improperly shifts the burden of proof to Second Amendment claimants, contrary to Supreme Court precedent established in Heller and Bruin. The analysis highlights the potential for an embarrassing reversal by the Supreme Court if the Second Circuit upholds New York City's ban on stun guns.

This video discusses the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's ruling in United States v. Zirka, concerning the constitutionality of 18 USC 922(g)(1) as applied to nonviolent felons. While the court acknowledged that 'the people' in the Second Amendment includes all citizens and that 1791 is the relevant historical period for interpretation, it ultimately upheld the ban on firearm possession for felons. The speaker criticizes the court's reliance on historically odious laws, such as those disarming religious minorities and people of color, as justification, arguing these are not valid historical analogs for disarming nonviolent felons.

This video analyzes a critical Second Amendment legal battle in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the disarmament of non-violent felons, specifically the case Zherka v. Garland. The DOJ's argument that permanent disarmament is permissible for non-violent offenses is critically examined, with the speaker highlighting the distinction between this case and the Rahimi decision. The analysis suggests disarmament must be causally linked to violent threats or firearm misuse.