BIG 2A WIN: OBAMA-APPOINTED FEDERAL JUDGE DECLARES FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Published on February 3, 2024
Duration: 8:49

An Obama-appointed federal judge in Illinois has ruled 18 USC 922(g)(1), the federal 'felon in possession' statute, unconstitutional. The ruling, in USA v. Cherry, applied the Second Amendment's text and history test, finding that 'the people' includes all citizens, even those with felony records. The court rejected the government's historical analogues for disarming felons, deeming them insufficient and often discriminatory.

Quick Summary

An Obama-appointed federal judge has declared 18 USC 922(g)(1), the federal 'felon in possession' statute, unconstitutional. The ruling in USA v. Cherry states that 'the people' in the Second Amendment includes all citizens, even those with felony records, and found the government's historical justifications for permanent disarmament insufficient.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Major Second Amendment Legal Victory Announced
  2. 00:31Case Overview: USA v. Cherry Explained
  3. 01:04Analysis of Federal Statute 18 USC 922(g)(1)
  4. 02:26Dicta vs. Holding in Supreme Court Rulings
  5. 03:21Defining 'The People' for the Second Amendment
  6. 04:36Rejection of Historical Gun Control Analogues
  7. 05:58Impact of Discriminatory Historical Laws
  8. 07:15Potential Supreme Court Implications

Frequently Asked Questions

Which federal gun control law was declared unconstitutional by an Obama-appointed judge?

An Obama-appointed federal judge in Illinois declared the federal gun control statute 18 USC 922(g)(1), commonly known as the 'felon in possession' law, unconstitutional. This ruling was made in the case of United States v. Bernard Cherry.

What is the significance of the ruling in USA v. Cherry for Second Amendment rights?

The USA v. Cherry ruling is significant because it found that 'the people' in the Second Amendment includes all citizens, even those with felony records. This challenges the constitutionality of statutes that permanently disarm individuals based on past convictions without sufficient historical justification.

How did the judge in USA v. Cherry interpret Supreme Court precedents like Heller and Bruen?

Judge Staci Yandle distinguished between Supreme Court 'dicta' (non-binding commentary) and 'holding' (the official ruling). She found that references to 'law-abiding citizens' in Heller and Bruen were dicta, allowing for a deeper constitutional analysis of prohibited persons under the Second Amendment.

What was the government's argument regarding historical gun control, and why did it fail?

The government attempted to use historical gun control laws as analogues to justify disarming felons. However, the court found these historical laws were often based on discriminatory or temporary statuses, not permanent disarmament, and failed to align with the Founding era's principles.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →