Supreme Court Issues 6-3 Gun Possession Decision Changing Everything!!!

The Supreme Court's 8-1 decision in Range v. Garland has been interpreted by the Third Circuit as striking down federal law prohibiting non-violent felons from possessing firearms, as applied to Mr. Range's specific conviction. The ruling emphasizes that individuals, even those with certain past convictions, remain 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment unless the government can demonstrate historical precedent for such a permanent ban. This decision opens the door for further 'as applied' challenges against Section 922 G1, particularly concerning non-violent offenses.

This video analyzes a major Second Amendment legal battle concerning the possession of firearms by non-violent felons. The US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit heard oral arguments in this significant case. Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, a constitutional attorney with extensive experience in Second Amendment law and a background as a Supreme Court Bar member, professor, and media commentator, breaks down the current state of the law, the case's background, the original decision, and the timeline. He offers his predictions and a summary of the arguments, including the role of historical analogues. The analysis aims to inform viewers about the "four boxes" of American liberty and defend their rights.

This YouTube video features constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith analyzing and predicting the US Supreme Court's decisions on Second Amendment cases, specifically highlighting the upcoming US v. Rahimi case and its implications for "prohibited persons" regulations under federal gun control law (18 USC 922g). Smith, a Supreme Court Bar member and frequent Fox News guest, delves into how these rulings might affect gun ownership rights, discussing categories of "convicted felons," drug offenders, and the controversial "red flag" laws. The content aims to inform gun owners about their constitutional rights and potential legal challenges.

An Obama-appointed federal judge in Illinois has ruled 18 USC 922(g)(1), the federal 'felon in possession' statute, unconstitutional. The ruling, in USA v. Cherry, applied the Second Amendment's text and history test, finding that 'the people' includes all citizens, even those with felony records. The court rejected the government's historical analogues for disarming felons, deeming them insufficient and often discriminatory.

This video analyzes a significant Second Amendment case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The court denied an en banc review of a case involving a criminal defendant charged under 18 USC 922(g)(1), the law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. However, four dissenting judges strongly questioned the constitutionality of this law, suggesting it could become a major Supreme Court case. The analysis delves into the legal arguments, historical parallels, and potential implications for Second Amendment rights.

This video discusses a significant Second Amendment victory in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning federal felon-in-possession laws, specifically 18 USC 922(g)(1). The ruling, authored by Judge James Ho, challenges the historical basis for disarming individuals convicted of non-violent offenses, emphasizing that modern 'malum prohibitum' crimes should not automatically lead to lifetime disarmament without historical precedent. The case of Edward Cockerham, disarmed for failing to pay child support, is used as a prime example.

This video provides an expert analysis of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Torcivia v. Suffolk County. The speaker, an authority on Second Amendment litigation, explains how the Second Circuit's ruling allows for warrantless firearm seizures under the 'special needs exception,' despite the Supreme Court's prior decision in Caniglia v. Strom. The denial means this precedent stands, potentially impacting future firearm rights cases.

This expert analysis from Armed Scholar details the Supreme Court's 5-4 emergency order concerning Texas's border dispute with the Biden administration. The ruling allows federal agents to cut concertina wire while the case proceeds, impacting Texas's claim to a constitutional right of self-defense against invasion. The case is remanded for further factual development.

The Supreme Court denied a stay for Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which aimed to prevent state agents from enforcing federal gun laws deemed unconstitutional. The 8-1 decision, with Justice Thomas dissenting, leaves the future of SAPA uncertain, though a statement from Justices Gorsuch and Alito suggests private enforcement mechanisms might still be viable. This ruling has significant implications for state-level attempts to counter federal firearm regulations.

This video details a critical U.S. Supreme Court emergency election order concerning Pennsylvania's handling of provisional ballots. The Supreme Court denied an emergency request to stay a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that mandated the counting of provisional ballots for voters whose mail-in ballots were deemed invalid. The RNC argued this usurped the state legislature's role and constituted impermissible 'ballot curing.' Justice Alito's opinion noted the limited scope of the lower court's judgment.