THE NEXT SUPREME COURT 2A CASE? Big 2nd Amendment Loss Could Turn Into a HUGE WIN!

Published on September 4, 2023
Duration: 19:06

This video discusses the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision not to rehear the 'United States v. Jackson' case en banc. The case challenges the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G1, which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. A dissent by four judges, appointed by Donald Trump, argues that the panel decision wrongly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant and failed to conduct proper historical analog analysis, suggesting that disarmament should be based on dangerousness, not mere criminality.

Quick Summary

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review in United States v. Jackson, a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G1 (felon in possession). A dissent argues the panel wrongly shifted the burden of proof and failed to conduct proper historical analysis, suggesting disarmament should be based on dangerousness, not mere criminality.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Breaking News: Eighth Circuit Decision
  2. 00:13United States v. Jackson Case Overview
  3. 00:2018 USC 922 G1: Prohibited Persons Laws
  4. 00:30Potential Supreme Court Impact
  5. 01:07Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling
  6. 01:19Three-Judge Panel Decision
  7. 01:25Felon in Possession Law Challenge
  8. 01:38Petition for En Banc Review
  9. 01:50En Banc Decision Process Explained
  10. 02:13En Banc Review Denied: Bad News
  11. 02:30Powerful Dissent by Four Judges
  12. 02:36Trump-Appointed Judges Dissent
  13. 02:51As Applied vs. Facial Challenges
  14. 03:25As Applied Challenge Example (Brian Rance)
  15. 04:16Jackson Case: As Applied Challenge
  16. 04:39Dissent's Critique of Panel Decision
  17. 05:05Burden of Proof Post-Bruin
  18. 06:05Panel's Reliance on Heller Dicta
  19. 07:06Failure of Analogical Reasoning
  20. 08:20Dissenting Judges' Summary
  21. 08:24Historical Context of Disarmament
  22. 09:22Anti-Gun Movement's Goals
  23. 10:12Four Historical Analogs Discussed
  24. 10:26Disarmament of Native Americans
  25. 11:26Disarmament of Slaves
  26. 12:47Disarmament of Catholics
  27. 13:40Disarmament of Loyalists
  28. 14:48Dissent Summary: Dangerousness vs. Virtue
  29. 15:37Challenges to 922 G1 Categories
  30. 16:33Two Categories of Challenges
  31. 17:48Scenarios for 922 G1 Challenges
  32. 18:02Potential Cert Petition to Supreme Court
  33. 18:10Comparison to Rahimi Case

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the significance of the Eighth Circuit's denial of en banc review in United States v. Jackson?

The denial means the panel's decision, which upheld the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G1 (felon in possession), stands for now within the Eighth Circuit. However, a strong dissent suggests the case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, potentially leading to a broader ruling on Second Amendment rights for felons.

What is the core argument of the dissenting judges in the United States v. Jackson case?

The dissenting judges argue that the panel wrongly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant and failed to conduct proper historical analysis. They contend that disarmament should be based on dangerousness, not mere criminality, especially for non-violent offenses or those committed long ago.

How does the concept of 'as applied' challenges relate to the United States v. Jackson case?

The case involves an 'as applied' challenge, meaning the argument is that 18 USC 922 G1 is unconstitutional in its application to Mr. Jackson, particularly given the nature of his past offense. This differs from a 'facial' challenge, which would argue the law is unconstitutional in all circumstances.

What historical analogs are discussed in relation to felon-in-possession laws?

The dissent discusses historical laws disarming Native Americans, slaves, Catholics, and Loyalists. It argues these are not valid analogs for disarming modern civilians for non-violent felonies, as they were based on status, perceived threats, or wartime measures, not general criminality.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →