AR-15 BAN FAIL: Harvard Law Professor FLUNKS the SECOND AMENDMENT ...

Published on May 20, 2023
Duration: 18:57

This video analyzes a Bloomberg article by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman arguing the Second Amendment allows a ban on AR-15s. The host, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, refutes Feldman's arguments by dissecting his interpretations of key Supreme Court cases like Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, and the 'in common use' test. Smith emphasizes that the Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, not just those specifically used for self-defense or militia duty, and critiques Feldman's misinterpretations of US v. Miller.

Quick Summary

The 'in common use' test for Second Amendment protection, established by Supreme Court rulings like Heller, protects firearms that are possessed by a significant number of Americans for lawful purposes. It focuses on widespread civilian ownership rather than the specific frequency of use in self-defense or militia activities.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Harvard Law Professor's AR-15 Ban Argument
  2. 00:28Host Introduction: Mark Smith, Constitutional Attorney
  3. 00:52Bloomberg Article: Second Amendment Allows AR-15 Ban
  4. 01:13Professor Noah Feldman & Justice David Souter Background
  5. 02:21Deconstructing Feldman's First Argument: 'Military Style'
  6. 04:01The 'Military Style' Fallacy Explained
  7. 05:11Redefining the 'In Common Use' Test
  8. 06:30Bruin and the Self-Defense Standard
  9. 08:22Analysis of US v. Miller Case
  10. 09:38US v. Miller: District Court & Supreme Court Proceedings
  11. 12:30What US v. Miller Actually Said About Shotguns
  12. 15:26Feldman's Misinterpretation of Current Law
  13. 16:12The Correct 'In Common Use' Standard
  14. 17:53Conclusion: Feldman's Argument is Legally Incorrect

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the 'in common use' test for Second Amendment rights?

The 'in common use' test, established by Supreme Court rulings like Heller, protects firearms that are possessed by a significant number of Americans for lawful purposes. It focuses on widespread civilian ownership rather than the specific frequency of use in self-defense or militia activities.

Did the Supreme Court rule in US v. Miller that short-barreled shotguns are unprotected?

No, US v. Miller (1939) did not make a definitive ruling on the protectability of short-barreled shotguns. The Court stated it lacked sufficient evidence to take judicial notice that such a weapon was part of ordinary military equipment or contributed to the common defense, remanding the case for further fact-finding.

How does the 'military style' designation affect Second Amendment rights?

When a firearm is described as 'military style,' it implies it is not an actual military weapon but a civilian firearm designed to resemble one. This designation, by definition, means it is not military equipment and does not automatically disqualify it from Second Amendment protection if it meets other criteria like being in common use.

What is the significance of the NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling regarding self-defense?

The NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling emphasized self-defense because the case specifically addressed the right to carry handguns outside the home for that purpose. While self-defense is a key aspect of Second Amendment rights, the core legal standard for protected arms remains whether they are in common use for lawful purposes.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →