DOJ ACCIDENTALLY DESTROYS THEIR OWN "ASSAULT WEAPON" ARGUMENT....PROOF HERE

Published on November 10, 2023
Duration: 11:44

This video features constitutional attorney Mark Smith of The Four Boxes Diner, who analyzes a critical admission made by the DOJ during the Rahimi oral argument. Smith argues this concession, regarding the application of historical analysis for Second Amendment principles, can be used to challenge 'assault weapon' bans and other firearm restrictions. He highlights the legal doctrine of estoppel and its implications for future litigation.

Quick Summary

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith explains how a DOJ admission in the Rahimi case, regarding the binding nature of established Second Amendment principles, can be used to challenge "assault weapon" bans. He highlights the legal doctrine of estoppel, which prevents the DOJ from altering its arguments, and reinforces the protection of commonly used firearms under Heller.

Chapters

  1. 00:00DOJ Concession in Rahimi Case
  2. 00:33Speaker Introduction & Credentials
  3. 00:44The Power of Estoppel in Legal Arguments
  4. 02:00Solicitor General's Binding Statements
  5. 03:13Key DOJ Admission on Legal Principles
  6. 04:19Prelogar's Direct Quote on Principle
  7. 04:51Impact of DOJ Concession on Gun Laws
  8. 06:59Heller's Legal Test for Arms Bans
  9. 08:05Reaffirming the Heller Test's Application
  10. 10:04Incremental Victory & Fight for Freedom
  11. 11:05Conclusion & Call to Action

Frequently Asked Questions

What critical admission did the DOJ make regarding "assault weapon" bans?

During the Rahimi oral argument, the DOJ, represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, admitted that once the Supreme Court establishes a Second Amendment principle based on history and tradition, it becomes binding law, negating the need for repeated historical analysis for every new restriction.

How can the legal doctrine of Estoppel be used against the DOJ?

Estoppel can be invoked to hold the DOJ to their stated positions made under oath before the Supreme Court. This prevents them from changing their legal arguments mid-litigation, thus using their own admissions to challenge firearm bans.

What is the significance of the Heller decision in this context?

The Heller decision established that firearms 'in common use' for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment. The DOJ's recent admissions reinforce this, suggesting that commonly owned firearms like AR-15s should not be subject to bans.

Who is Mark Smith and what are his credentials?

Mark Smith is a constitutional attorney, author of 'Disarmed,' and host of The Four Boxes Diner. He is presented as an expert on Second Amendment law, demonstrating advanced knowledge of legal doctrines and Supreme Court cases.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →