CALIFORNIA CAUGHT! 700,000 Machine Guns Claim Exposed in Duncan v. Bonta Case...

Published on December 12, 2022
Duration: 13:05

This video, featuring constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, analyzes California's legal arguments in Duncan v. Bonta concerning machine gun ownership and the 'common use' doctrine. Smith critiques California's attempt to redefine 'common use' by misinterpreting ATF data on registered machine guns, highlighting that the cited 700,000 figure includes non-civilian-owned firearms. The analysis emphasizes that private civilian ownership numbers are crucial for Second Amendment protections, referencing key Supreme Court cases like Heller and Caetano.

Quick Summary

California's legal brief in Duncan v. Bonta misrepresents machine gun ownership by citing over 700,000 registered firearms, a figure including government and manufacturer items. Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith explains that the 'common use' doctrine, crucial for Second Amendment protection, relies on private civilian ownership numbers, which are significantly lower and potentially below established thresholds.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction to California Machine Gun Claim
  2. 00:42Duncan v. Bonta and Footnote 11
  3. 01:28Constitutional Standards for Common Use
  4. 03:02California's Legal Strategy
  5. 05:12The 700,000 Machine Gun Claim
  6. 07:16Analyzing ATF Statistical Data
  7. 08:42Private vs. Government Ownership
  8. 11:18Apples to Apples Comparison Flaw

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the 'common use' doctrine regarding firearms?

The 'common use' doctrine, established in cases like Heller and Caetano, protects arms that are in common use for lawful purposes under the Second Amendment. This means they cannot be banned outright. The number of such items in circulation is a key factor in determining if they meet this protected status.

How does California's argument in Duncan v. Bonta misrepresent machine gun ownership?

California cites over 700,000 registered machine guns to argue against Second Amendment protection. However, this figure includes firearms owned by manufacturers and government agencies, not just private citizens. The relevant metric for 'common use' is private civilian ownership, which is significantly lower.

What is the significance of the Caetano v. Massachusetts case?

In Caetano v. Massachusetts, stun guns, numbering around 200,000, were deemed to be in 'common use.' This ruling established that once an arm is in common use for lawful purposes, it receives Second Amendment protection and cannot be banned.

What ATF report is relevant to the Duncan v. Bonta machine gun discussion?

The ATF report 'Firearms Commerce in the United States Annual Statistical Update' is frequently cited. California uses data from this report to present the 700,000+ machine gun figure, but the analysis highlights how this data is selectively interpreted to exclude the crucial distinction between private and government ownership.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →