How Courts Can *legally* Take Your Gun Rights Away

Published on October 27, 2021
Duration: 11:17

This video features Mark W. Smith, a Constitutional Attorney, explaining how federal courts utilize the 'tiers of scrutiny' doctrine to uphold gun control laws, potentially infringing upon Second Amendment rights. The discussion covers the historical context, the three tiers of scrutiny (Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, Rational Basis), and the subjective nature of judicial review, highlighting concerns that this doctrine allows judges to prioritize policy over constitutional text. The expert emphasizes the importance of cases like Heller and the ongoing NYSRPA v. Bruen case in potentially reaffirming the rejection of interest-balancing in constitutional rights interpretation.

Quick Summary

Federal courts may use the 'tiers of scrutiny' doctrine to uphold gun control laws, potentially infringing on Second Amendment rights. This doctrine involves three levels of review: Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Rational Basis. Experts like Constitutional Attorney Mark W. Smith argue this process can be subjective, allowing judges to balance rights against government interests, which has been challenged in key cases like Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction to Tiers of Scrutiny
  2. 01:29The Three Tiers of Scrutiny
  3. 03:38Historical Context of Constitutional Law
  4. 05:39Subjectivity in Judicial Review
  5. 07:14The Heller and Bruen Cases
  6. 10:03Conclusion and Summary

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the 'tiers of scrutiny' used by courts regarding gun rights?

Courts use three tiers: Strict Scrutiny (highest, for fundamental rights), Intermediate Scrutiny (mid-level), and Rational Basis (lowest, easiest for government to meet). These are applied to evaluate gun control laws and their impact on Second Amendment rights.

How can courts legally take away gun rights according to legal doctrine?

Federal courts can use the 'tiers of scrutiny' doctrine to uphold gun control laws. This doctrine allows judges to assess if a law is consistent with government interests like public health, which can lead to the infringement of constitutional rights if not properly applied.

What is the significance of the Heller and Bruen cases in relation to gun rights?

The Heller decision (2008) rejected interest-balancing for constitutional rights. The NYSRPA v. Bruen case is significant as it's expected to reaffirm the rejection of this doctrine, potentially preventing courts from using it to diminish Second Amendment protections.

What are the concerns about the 'tiers of scrutiny' doctrine?

A major concern is that the 'tiers of scrutiny' doctrine introduces subjectivity into judicial review, allowing judges to potentially prioritize policy preferences over the explicit text of the Constitution and undermine fundamental rights.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →