They Really Said This Bizarre Thing About The 2nd Amendment!

Published on May 11, 2023
Duration: 13:43

This video analyzes the legal arguments presented in the National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville case and its companion Illinois case, focusing on the state's attempt to ban AR-15s and standard capacity magazines. It details the legal strategies employed by the state, including misinterpretations of the 'common use' and 'bearable arms' tests from Heller and Bruin, and highlights the unusual step of the Supreme Court, specifically Justice Amy Coney Barrett, requesting further briefing on the preliminary injunction.

Quick Summary

The state of Illinois and Naperville are attempting to ban AR-15s and standard capacity magazines, arguing they are not covered by the Second Amendment. Their legal strategy misinterprets the 'common use' test, claiming firearms must be used solely for self-defense to be protected, and that only handguns qualify as 'bearable arms.' Justice Amy Coney Barrett's unusual request for further briefing signals potential Supreme Court scrutiny.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: 'Bearable Arms' Argument
  2. 00:12NAGR v. Naperville & Illinois Case Update
  3. 00:35USCCA Sponsorship & Giveaway
  4. 00:57Bottom Line: No Trial Decision Yet
  5. 01:16Naperville Ordinance & Illinois Law Explained
  6. 01:38Plaintiff's Goal: Preliminary Injunction
  7. 02:01District Judge Denies Injunction (Naperville)
  8. 02:17Judge Grants Injunction (Illinois Case)
  9. 02:31Seventh Circuit Joins Cases, Denies Injunctions
  10. 02:40Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court
  11. 03:01Petitioning Justice Amy Coney Barrett
  12. 03:13Plaintiffs' Argument to Justice Barrett
  13. 03:46Barrett Requests State Briefing
  14. 04:16State's Briefing: Disingenuous Arguments
  15. 04:26State's First Argument: Courts Shouldn't Intervene
  16. 05:06Justice Barrett's Potential Motivation
  17. 05:14Snarky Tone of State's Briefs
  18. 05:47State Claims 'First Impression' Case
  19. 06:16State's Second Amendment Analysis
  20. 06:36Second Amendment Not Implicated Argument
  21. 06:42The Bruin Test Explained
  22. 07:22Antagonistic Courts Stop at Step One
  23. 07:46AR-15s Not Covered by 2nd Amendment Claim
  24. 07:56Butchering Heller and Bruin
  25. 08:22Misinterpreting 'Common Use' for Self-Defense
  26. 09:03Correct 'Common Use' Definition
  27. 09:37Telling Justice Barrett She's Wrong
  28. 10:09The 'Bearable Arms' Argument
  29. 10:27Second Amendment Only Applies to Handguns?
  30. 10:35Rifles Not for Self-Defense Argument
  31. 11:10Proper Tool for Self-Defense: Handgun/Shotgun
  32. 11:18Shotgun as Functional Equivalent to Rifle
  33. 11:32Throwing Everything Against the Wall
  34. 11:47Attempting Balancing Tests
  35. 12:15Justice Thomas's Admonishment in Bruin
  36. 12:23State Telling Supreme Court What to Do
  37. 12:35Lying to the Supreme Court
  38. 12:45Will Supreme Court Invalidate Injunction?
  39. 13:04Desired Outcome: Barrett Opinion
  40. 13:27Opportunity to Slap Down State Actions
  41. 13:30Decision Expected Soon
  42. 13:33Final Training Reminder

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core legal argument being made by Illinois and Naperville regarding AR-15s and standard capacity magazines?

Illinois and Naperville are attempting to ban the sale of AR-15s and standard capacity magazines. Their legal strategy includes arguing that these firearms are not covered by the Second Amendment, misinterpreting the 'common use' test, and claiming the Second Amendment only applies to 'bearable arms' like handguns.

What is the significance of Justice Amy Coney Barrett's involvement in the NAGR v. Naperville case?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, responsible for the circuit, unusually requested the state to fully brief why a preliminary injunction should not be granted. This step is significant as it indicates the Supreme Court is considering the case beyond a typical denial of certiorari, potentially signaling a deeper review of the legal arguments.

How are the state's legal briefs described in the video, and what are their main arguments?

The state's legal briefs are described as disingenuous and snarky, using inflammatory language like 'malicious firearms.' Key arguments include claiming the cases are of 'first impression,' that courts shouldn't intervene in lower court trials, and that AR-15s are not in 'common use' for self-defense, thus falling outside Second Amendment protection.

What is the 'common use' test, and how is the state allegedly misinterpreting it?

The 'common use' test, established in Heller, determines if a firearm is protected by the Second Amendment. The state allegedly misinterprets it by requiring firearms to be used *exclusively* for self-defense to be considered in common use, rather than for lawful purposes including self-defense, thereby excluding AR-15s.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from USCCA

View all →