Why Every State With an "Assault Rifle" Ban Better Watch This Case

This video analyzes the Supreme Court case Wolford v. Lopez, focusing on Hawaii's "vampire rule" which restricts concealed carry by requiring businesses to post signs permitting firearms. The CRPA, with attorney Chuck Michel, discusses the oral arguments, expressing skepticism from some justices towards the state's arguments. The discussion touches on the clash between property rights and Second Amendment rights, the potential for the Second Amendment to be treated as a 'second-class' right, and historical parallels. It also covers the DOJ's involvement and the broader implications of the case for gun rights nationwide.

This video provides an expert-level analysis of current Supreme Court cases challenging 'assault weapon' and magazine bans. It details the relisting of key cases like Viramontes v. Cook County and Duncan v. Bonta, highlighting the potential impact of the recent Benson v. United States ruling that struck down DC's magazine ban. The speaker, an authority on firearms law, discusses the core constitutional questions and potential SCOTUS strategies.

A recent ruling in Benson v. United States declared Washington D.C.'s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds unconstitutional, citing their common use and Second Amendment protection. This decision creates a circuit split with other appellate courts, significantly increasing the likelihood of Supreme Court review, particularly for the pending Duncan v. Bonta case challenging California's similar ban. The ruling emphasizes that arms in common use are protected and historical tradition does not support banning them.

This video, hosted by Chuck Michel, analyzes how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allegedly undermines Second Amendment victories won by three-judge panels. The description argues that this judicial activism stems from an anti-gun bias, especially in light of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which dictates that courts should not engage in 'meaningful constraints' or 'interest balancing' when a law infringes upon the plain text of the right to bear arms. The burden, according to Bruen, shifts to the government to justify such infringements, particularly concerning common firearms and related activities.

This video discusses a critical legal challenge to Illinois' ban on suppressor purchase and possession, arguing it violates the Second Amendment under Heller and Bruen. The case highlights the state's repeated delays in responding to the appeal, suggesting a strategy to prevent the issue from reaching the Supreme Court. The Seventh Circuit's decision on the state's delay tactics is crucial for the progression of this Second Amendment case.

This YouTube video discusses the significance of the Supreme Court relisting cases concerning "assault weapon" bans, specifically referencing the Snope AR-15 ban and Ocean State Tactical cases. Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney and Second Amendment scholar, analyzes the legal implications of these relists, drawing parallels to broader Second Amendment litigation post-Bruen. The video also promotes Smith's legal scholarship and his work, which has influenced judicial decisions on firearm laws.

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.