SUPREME COURT BREAKING NEWS: Racist and Odious Historical Laws Used to Justify Gun Control Today

Published on August 23, 2023
Duration: 17:30

This video discusses the US Supreme Court case United States v. Rahimi, focusing on arguments presented in amicus briefs regarding historical laws used to justify modern gun control. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, highlights how some briefs cite historical laws with racist and odious foundations, such as those disarming Catholics, Native Americans, and enslaved people, as analogs to support current gun restrictions. The discussion centers on whether these historical precedents are valid justifications for infringing on Second Amendment rights in the 21st century, particularly in the context of domestic violence restraining orders.

Quick Summary

In the US v. Rahimi case, amicus briefs are citing historical laws with racist foundations, like those disarming Catholics or Native Americans, as analogs to justify current gun control measures. The core legal question is whether 18 USC 922(g), concerning domestic violence orders, aligns with the Second Amendment, while the DOJ aims to challenge the established 'Bruin methodology' for Second Amendment analysis.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Breaking News: Supreme Court Gun Control Case
  2. 01:10US v. Rahimi: The Core Issue
  3. 02:05DOJ's Strategy & Bruin Methodology
  4. 03:05Amicus Briefs & Historical Analogs
  5. 04:02History & Law Professors' Brief
  6. 06:02Quote: Disarming Perceived Threats
  7. 07:50Repugnant Laws as Precedent
  8. 08:47The 97 Percent Group Brief
  9. 10:08Wholesale vs. Retail Disarmament
  10. 12:00Second Amendment Law Scholars Brief
  11. 13:35Desperation of Gun Control Advocates
  12. 15:13Espinoza v. Montana & First Amendment
  13. 16:02Weaponizing Perceived Dangerousness
  14. 16:48Understanding the Fight for Rights

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the central legal issue in the US v. Rahimi Supreme Court case?

The central legal issue in US v. Rahimi is whether federal law 18 USC 922(g), which prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, is consistent with the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms.

How are historical laws being used in the US v. Rahimi case's amicus briefs?

Some amicus briefs cite historical laws, including those with racist and odious foundations like disarming Catholics or Native Americans, as analogs to justify modern gun control measures, arguing that historical precedent supports restricting firearm possession.

What is the 'Bruin methodology' and why is it relevant to the Rahimi case?

The Bruin methodology is the Supreme Court's framework for Second Amendment cases, requiring the government to show a historical tradition of firearm regulation. The DOJ is reportedly hoping to challenge or gut this methodology in the Rahimi case to weaken Second Amendment protections.

What is the distinction between 'wholesale' and 'retail' disarmament discussed in the video?

The speaker distinguishes 'wholesale disarmament' as laws that disarm entire categories of people (like 18 USC 922(g)) from 'retail disarmament' which targets individuals, such as through red flag laws, where specific persons are singled out.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →