Always a good channel :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMfally7JaA
Always a good channel :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMfally7JaA
3rd Circuit ruled that a non violent felon can not be denied the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Federal Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky struck down the law prohibiting people under protective orders from owning guns. The 5th Circuit issued a very similar ruling on the same day.
Small wins happening, and I hope Bruen helps us get larger wins like AWB and Magazine Bans. 4th Circuit 3 Judge panel heard a care challenging the Maryland AWB case this week after it was GVR's by SCOTUS. 9th is re-hearing the Cali AWB, Mag ban, and pistol roster in light of Bruen. We got wins from the 5th and 6th circuits with bump-stocks and wins from the 5th on pistol braces. Let's hope all these dominos fall ASAP.
Not being an attorney nor legal scholar, my understanding is everything has to be viewed through the lens of Bruen at this point, and that is very much in the favor of 2A Rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex V
Poor guy's eyes don't know what to do! LOL
That is how I understand it. The new test for laws dealing with the Second Amendment is "Text as informed by history" and the courts can no longer use the interest balancing approach. Simply put, if the conduct is protected by the Second Amendment, it's restriction has to have a basis in something which was law in 1791. If it doesn't then it's unconstitutional. In 1791 we did not have protective orders or surety laws, we did not ban specific weapons based on physical characteristics or barrel length or accesories, we did not ban capacity, we did not have requirements for background checks, and we did not have requirements for carrying a gun outside the home.Quote:
Originally Posted by WillBrink
Bruen and Heller, between the common use and text as informed by history tests sets up a scaffold to tear down nearly every gun law. It would be hard trying to go back to 1934 but it isn't impossible. They key is to get it done quickly before the composition of the court changes too much. There will be judges like the moron in Washington who ignore Heller and Bruen, which is why they all have to be forced to SCOTUS.
Yeah she knows what her assets are. God bless her.
Hope this goes better than the one a couple years ago where the plaintiff initially won, but then turned 21 during appeals.
That channel is pretty good, # 3 behind the #2 Washing gun Law channel and by far the #1, the Mark Smith 4 boxes diner.
I may need to update my sig line, but from Mark Smith.
-Is the 2A implicated? (Is it a bearable arm basically, and arms are both offensive and defensive arms- including ammunition and magazines and extends to modern things like stun guns.)
-Are they trying to ban it. (If it is common use, you can’t ban it. Something like 250,000. And it is on the govt to prove that it isn’t in common use. And that isn’t narrowly “in common use for self-defense”, or having been used to shoot- mere possession for a legal use is enough.)
-Can they place restrictions on it? (If there is an analogous law from the foundering era (1791ish), that was codified and not a one-off, then yes.)
Lots of particulars, but that pretty much covers the basics. I think I’m going to try to make a fly diagram to cover it. Lawyers often work in words, I work in spatial relations and visuals.
Let me know when SCOTUS does it. I've watched 9th district courts rule MG bans were unconstitutional, obviously nothing changed.