The Lies Courts Will Tell to Disarm You

Published on March 28, 2025
Duration: 12:46

This video analyzes the court's decision in Caliy v. New York City, which upheld New York's ban on stun guns and tasers. The speaker argues that the court bastardized the Bruin test by moving the 'common use' analysis to the first step, effectively eliminating Second Amendment protection for stun guns. The decision is criticized for ignoring Supreme Court precedent like Katanov v. Massachusetts and for its disingenuous application of legal standards to achieve a desired outcome of civilian disarmament.

Quick Summary

The court in Caliy v. New York City 'bastardized' the Bruin test by moving the 'common use' analysis to the first step. This required plaintiffs to prove common use upfront, effectively eliminating Second Amendment protection for stun guns and tasers without further inquiry.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Bruin and Disarmament
  2. 01:11Stop Box Challenge (Humorous Segment)
  3. 03:18Caliy v. New York City Case Overview
  4. 04:00Katanov v. Massachusetts Precedent
  5. 05:08Summary Judgment and Court's Decision
  6. 06:01Bastardizing the Bruin Test
  7. 08:03Step One Analysis and Common Use
  8. 09:07Cited Authorities and Rahimi Case
  9. 10:11Ignoring Supreme Court Precedent
  10. 11:43Conclusion and Resources

Frequently Asked Questions

How did the court in Caliy v. New York City interpret the Bruin test regarding stun guns?

The court in Caliy v. New York City 'bastardized' the Bruin test by moving the 'common use' analysis to the first step. This required plaintiffs to prove common use upfront, effectively eliminating Second Amendment protection for stun guns and tasers without further inquiry.

What was the significance of Katanov v. Massachusetts in the Caliy v. New York City case?

Plaintiffs argued Katanov v. Massachusetts established stun guns are in common use. However, the Caliy court dismissed this, stating Katanov didn't conclusively determine common use and vacated a ruling only because the lower court's reasoning contradicted precedent.

Why did the court in Caliy v. New York City rule against stun gun possession?

The court ruled against stun gun possession by finding they are not in common use for lawful purposes. They shifted the burden of proof to plaintiffs to demonstrate common use at step one of the Bruin test, which they failed to do according to the court.

What is the main argument presented about courts disarming citizens?

The video argues that courts are disarming citizens by ignoring established law and precedent, such as the Bruin test's proper application. They manipulate legal standards, like in Caliy v. NYC, to reach desired outcomes that restrict Second Amendment rights.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Washington Gun Law

View all →