INSANE 2A NEWS: FEDERAL APPEALS COURT USES LAW THAT DOESN'T EXIST (!!!) TO TAKE AWAY 2A RIGHTS...

Published on December 11, 2023
Duration: 18:37

This video features constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, author of 'Disarmed,' critically analyzing the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Antonyuk v. Chiumento. Smith highlights how the court allegedly used a non-existent law, specifically a misinterpretation of the 1328 Statute of Northampton and a bogus 1792 North Carolina statute, to justify restrictions on Second Amendment rights in 'sensitive places.' The analysis is supported by historian Stephen Halbrook, who confirms the invalidity of the cited North Carolina law.

Quick Summary

Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith critiques the Second Circuit's Antonyuk v. Chiumento decision, arguing it relied on a non-existent 1792 North Carolina statute and a misapplied 1328 Statute of Northampton to restrict Second Amendment rights in 'sensitive places' like parks and zoos. Historian Stephen Halbrook corroborates the invalidity of the cited North Carolina law.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Court Error in 2A Case
  2. 01:05Antonyuk v. Chiumento Decision
  3. 02:43Flawed Historical Analogs
  4. 05:00The Bogus NC Statute
  5. 07:35Expert Debunking of Statute
  6. 08:45Legal Implications and Conclusion

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main legal issue in the Antonyuk v. Chiumento case discussed by Mark W. Smith?

The primary issue is the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' alleged use of a non-existent law, specifically a misinterpretation of the 1328 Statute of Northampton and a bogus 1792 North Carolina statute, to justify restricting Second Amendment rights in 'sensitive places'.

Who is Mark W. Smith and what is his expertise in this legal matter?

Mark W. Smith is a constitutional attorney and author of books like 'Disarmed.' His expertise is evident through his authoritative tone, his membership in the US Supreme Court bar, and his extensive publications on Second Amendment law.

What historical law did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals cite, and why is it controversial?

The court cited the 1328 Statute of Northampton and a purported 1792 North Carolina statute. It's controversial because historian Stephen Halbrook confirms the NC statute is bogus, and the Supreme Court has previously rejected the Statute of Northampton as a valid analog for modern gun bans.

How does the ruling in Antonyuk v. Chiumento impact gun-free zones?

The ruling, by allegedly relying on flawed legal reasoning, could set a precedent for government-mandated gun-free zones in places like zoos, parks, and theaters, potentially expanding their scope based on questionable historical interpretations.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →