BREAKING 2A NEWS: ANTI-GUN JUDGES MAKE HUGE ERRORS...

Published on January 16, 2025
Duration: 18:15

This video analyzes a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding Colorado's ban on firearm purchases for individuals aged 18-20. The speaker, a constitutional attorney, argues the court erred by relying on 'science' regarding maturity and misapplying the Bruin test. He asserts that the right to acquire firearms is textually implied within the Second Amendment and that historical precedent, specifically the Militia Act of 1792, supports the right of 18-20 year olds to possess arms.

Quick Summary

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals erred by upholding Colorado's ban on firearm purchases for 18-20 year olds. Relying on 'science' for maturity restrictions is improper interest balancing, and historical precedent like the Militia Act of 1792 shows these individuals historically possessed arms. Preventing acquisition hinders the right to keep and bear arms, as 'infringe' means to hinder.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: 10th Circuit's Second Amendment Error
  2. 00:34Host Introduction: Mark Smith, Constitutional Attorney
  3. 01:07The Colorado Law and the 10th Circuit Ruling
  4. 01:52Critique of 'Science' in Legal Analysis
  5. 04:03Analysis of the 'Three Prongs of Bruin'
  6. 05:15Defining 'The People' in the Second Amendment
  7. 06:31Defining 'Arms' and Protected Weapons
  8. 07:30The Implication of the Right to Acquire Firearms
  9. 08:43Defining 'Infringe' from Historical Dictionaries
  10. 11:14Historical Precedent: Militia Act of 1792
  11. 13:51The Law is Not in Amber: Modern Context
  12. 15:11Defining 'Minors' in Modern Legal Context
  13. 16:27Conclusion: The 10th Circuit Got It Wrong
  14. 17:40Call to Action: Follow and Subscribe

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling regarding firearm purchases for 18-20 year olds in Colorado?

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Colorado law that prohibits individuals aged 18, 19, and 20 from purchasing firearms. The court's decision was based, in part, on perceived scientific evidence regarding the maturity of this age group.

Why does the speaker believe the 10th Circuit's decision is erroneous?

The speaker, a constitutional attorney, argues the court erred by relying on 'science' to restrict constitutional rights, which constitutes improper interest balancing. He also contends the court misapplied legal frameworks like the Bruin test and ignored historical precedents supporting the right of 18-20 year olds to acquire firearms.

What historical precedent supports the right of 18-20 year olds to possess firearms?

The Militia Act of 1792 is cited as a key historical precedent. This act required 18, 19, and 20-year-olds to acquire and bring their own firearms for militia musters, demonstrating that they were historically expected and permitted to possess arms.

How does the speaker define 'infringe' in the context of the Second Amendment?

Drawing from historical dictionaries used by the Supreme Court, 'infringe' is defined as to 'hinder' or to be an obstacle. Therefore, preventing 18-20 year olds from acquiring firearms through purchase is seen as a hindrance and thus an infringement on their right to keep and bear arms.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →