2A CHALLENGE FAILS AS 86-YEAR OLD FEDERAL JUDGE FROM JIMMY CARTER DAYS APPROVES "WAITING PERIOD"

Published on November 16, 2023
Duration: 18:09

This video analyzes a Colorado federal judge's decision regarding a 3-day firearm waiting period, arguing it misapplies Second Amendment law. The speaker contends that the right to acquire firearms is an ancillary right necessarily implied by the text of the Second Amendment, similar to how the First Amendment protects the right to acquire paper and ink. The analysis emphasizes that 'infringed' at the time of the founding meant to 'hinder' or 'destroy,' making any barrier to acquisition a potential infringement.

Quick Summary

A 3-day waiting period for firearm acquisition in Colorado is argued to violate the Second Amendment. The core argument is that the right to acquire firearms is an ancillary right, necessarily implied by the text, and that 'infringed' at the founding meant to 'hinder' or 'destroy,' making any barrier a violation.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Colorado Waiting Period Case
  2. 00:34Host Introduction: Mark Smith
  3. 00:52Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis Case Overview
  4. 01:15Judge John Kane's Background and Decision
  5. 02:06Misapplication of the Second Amendment
  6. 02:37Heller and Bruen Precedents
  7. 03:06Interpreting the Second Amendment Text
  8. 04:19Anti-Gun Lobby Tactics
  9. 06:22Judge Kane's Ruling on Acquisition
  10. 07:06Critique of the Decision: Ancillary Rights
  11. 07:41Ancillary Rights Explained (First Amendment Example)
  12. 08:30Minneapolis Star Case (1983)
  13. 09:30Sixth Amendment Ancillary Rights Example
  14. 09:54Second Amendment Ancillary Rights: Acquisition
  15. 10:52Defining 'Infringed' at the Founding
  16. 11:31Noah Webster and Samuel Johnson Dictionaries
  17. 12:46Waiting Period as Hindrance
  18. 13:50Burden Shift to Government
  19. 15:31UCC and Constitutional Rights
  20. 17:00Conclusion and Future Outlook

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main argument against Colorado's 3-day firearm waiting period?

The primary argument is that the waiting period infringes upon the Second Amendment right to acquire firearms. This right is considered an ancillary right, necessarily implied by the text, and the term 'infringed' at the time of the founding meant to 'hinder' or 'destroy,' making any barrier a violation.

How do Supreme Court cases like Heller and Bruen apply to firearm waiting periods?

Heller and Bruen established that Second Amendment challenges shift the burden of proof to the government. They must demonstrate that modern gun control laws are justified by a long-standing historical tradition of firearm regulation, which is difficult for laws like waiting periods.

What is the significance of 'ancillary rights' in Second Amendment law?

Ancillary rights are those not explicitly stated in the text of a constitutional amendment but are necessarily implied for the core right to be exercised. For the Second Amendment, the right to acquire firearms is considered an ancillary right, similar to how the First Amendment protects the right to buy paper and ink for speech.

How did founding-era dictionaries define 'infringed' in the context of the Second Amendment?

Founding-era dictionaries, including those by Noah Webster and Samuel Johnson, defined 'infringed' as to 'hinder' or 'destroy.' This definition is crucial because any law that hinders or destroys the right to keep and bear arms is considered an infringement.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →