The Huge Case That No One is Talking About

This expert analysis from Gun Owners of America (GOA) details the upcoming Supreme Court case, United States v. Hemani, which examines the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) prohibiting firearm possession by unlawful marijuana users. The video contrasts this with the United States v. Rahimi case, highlighting the DOJ's strategy of using cases with unsympathetic defendants to challenge Second Amendment rights established by the Bruen decision. GOA emphasizes the importance of historical precedent in Second Amendment jurisprudence and their role in filing amicus briefs to support gun owners' rights.

This video from Washington Gun Law, presented by William Kirk, analyzes two critical Supreme Court cases, Range v. Attorney General and United States v. Daniels, which challenge the constitutionality of federal firearm prohibitions for non-violent felons and controlled substance users. The DOJ's request for Supreme Court review in these cases is discussed, highlighting potential implications for Second Amendment rights and the historical basis for firearm restrictions.

This video from Washington Gun Law, presented by President William Kirk, analyzes the potential impact of the Williams v. Garland case on Second Amendment rights. It explores how the Bruen decision is prompting courts to re-examine firearm prohibitions, particularly those stemming from non-violent offenses like DUIs, and discusses related cases that are challenging existing interpretations of federal firearm laws.

The Supreme Court's 8-1 decision in Range v. Garland, following the Rahimi case, has significantly altered the Second Amendment landscape. The Third Circuit ruled that federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to individuals with non-violent misdemeanor convictions, like Brian Range's food stamp fraud. This decision challenges the government's ability to permanently disarm citizens based on such offenses, emphasizing that 'felons are not among the people' protected by the Second Amendment is an approach the court rejects.

The Supreme Court has remanded a New York concealed carry case (Antonyuk v. Nigrelli) back to the Second Circuit for re-evaluation in light of the recent Rahimi decision. This action follows New York's implementation of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) after the Bruen decision, which struck down the state's previous 'may issue' system. The speaker, an expert in firearms law, anticipates the Second Circuit may narrow the scope of previous injunctions against the CCIA based on Rahimi's implications.

This video discusses the legal implications of the United States v. Rahimi case and its impact on 18 USC Section 922(g)(3), which prohibits individuals who use controlled substances from possessing firearms. William Kirk of Washington Gun Law argues that the Rahimi ruling contains problematic language that could be broadly applied to restrict gun rights, mirroring challenges seen in cases like Cooper v. Attorney General and US v. Daniels. The content aims to educate viewers on these legal developments and their potential consequences for Second Amendment rights.

This guide, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, outlines tactical and legal considerations for drivers encountering mob situations. It emphasizes de-escalation, identifying escape routes, and understanding the legal thresholds for self-defense, particularly the distinction between property damage and threats to human life. Kirk, a legal instructor, stresses the importance of restraint and lawful action.

This video, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, explores the complex legal question of whether one can legally shoot back at police if they are unlawfully firing. Kirk emphasizes that while a legal right to self-defense against imminent threats of death or serious bodily harm exists, the decision to use lethal force, especially against law enforcement, involves significant tactical and legal considerations beyond mere legality. The discussion highlights foundational self-defense principles and specific legal doctrines like the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.

This video, featuring William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, details how sheriffs in Arkansas are pushing back against federal gun control measures, particularly the ATF's pistol brace rule. It highlights Arkansas Act 1012 and state code 21-1-904, which aim to prevent state and local officials from enforcing federal firearms regulations deemed unconstitutional infringements on Second Amendment rights. The Arkansas Sheriff's Association has officially stated their non-support for enforcing such rules, prioritizing focus on violent offenders.

William Kirk from Washington Gun Law clarifies that the ATF cannot demand inspection of non-NFA firearms without a warrant. While NFA ownership doesn't waive Fourth Amendment rights, FFLs are subject to annual inspections, a rule not applicable to private individuals. If ATF agents arrive without a warrant, consent is typically required, and politely declining is advised.