Courthouse Steps Decision: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down New York’s handgun licensing law that required New Yorkers to demonstrate a “proper cause” in order to be granted a license to carry a pistol or revolver in public. The petitioners, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, were denied licenses to carry a firearm in public after listing their generalized interest in self-defense as the reason for seeking the license. New York denied their license application because a generalized interest in self-defense failed to satisfy the state’s proper cause requirement. Both men sued, claiming that New York had violated their Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights in doing so. A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in the first major case on firearms regulation that the Court has considered in over a decade.
Featuring:
Prof. Mark W. Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law in the Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of Law
* * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Short barreled rifles, silencers, and automatic carbines are all "bearable arms". The 200 dollar tax is arbitrary.
Not arbitrary, designed to make inaccessible to most, and didn't account for inflation. Since $200 in 1934 was cost of Thompson, it amounted to a 100% tax.
Breyer’s dissent got spanked by Alito.
If i remember correctly someone stated there are facts to back up that more guns equals less crime i dont remember who said it but it was along those lines i believe
@@DRAG0N1012 John R. Lott Jr. wrote, "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws."
@@BruthaVIII I'll have to give it a read
The NY Safe Act has to be over ruled now. California, Maryland, and the rest have to be over turned now.
A license, by definition, is the granting of a privilege. Heller decided that the 2nd Amendment recognizes that keeping and bearing arms is not a privilege but a right. A license, therefore, regardless of the type of regime, is unconstitutional on its face. Justice Roberts, during oral argument in Bruen, queried the Solicitor General, saying that he didn't think the requirement to apply for a license to exercise a right would be constitutional, regardless of what right it is. The Solicitor General merely responded, in sum and substance, "I agree, but Mr. Clement [petitioner's attorney] himself told Justice Kavanaugh when he attempted to probe him on this point, that he didn't have a qualm with licensing regimes." And Clement remained silent. For some reason, Clement did not want to raise the constitutionality of licensing schemes per se, thus condemning NYC gun owners to being terrorized and made to jump through hoops every three years by the NYPD Licensing Division. The Sullivan Law, thanks to him, remains, albeit without a special needs requirement, and the 2nd Amendment, in NYC, will continue to have a shelf life of three years and an expiration date, and my right to keep and bear arms will cease to exist at the stroke of midnight the day after my birthday if I haven't applied for an been issued a renewal license (and paid the $340 fee) and navigated the byzantine process, prior to the arbitrary deadline imposed by the administrative agency. So since this issue was not raised by petitioner and was not briefed or argued, the Supreme Court could only rule on the narrow relief requested, which was to find the special need requirement of NYC's licensing requirement unconstitutional and to order the City to issue licenses without that requirement, thus making the licensing regime a non-discretionary, shall-issue one. The Court was thus put in a box by Clement and was compelled to find shall-issue regimes, like what Clement asked for, ok, as opposed to may-issue one like NYC's, and found as a rationale that they are merely ministerial and non-discretionary, supporting the rationale with the attenuated analysis that they would fit the history, tradition and practice of the nation regarding gun carry that did not depend upon government permission, and that certain ante-bellum laws prohibiting concealed carry did not contradict that history and tradition because they allowed open carry as an alternative. But these laws illustrating the history and tradition were not licensing regimes. Licensing was not even a concept anywhere in the country until 1911 when NYC, the quintessential outlier, through its Tammany Hall City Council, promulgated the first firearms licensing scheme. So history and tradition does not support licensing schemes at all. Quite the opposite, it conclusively establishes the unconstitutionality of licensing. Making them non-discretionary doesn't change that. If I fail to put in my renewal application on time and miss the deadline by one day, the NYPD will come to my house and confiscate my guns. How is that consistent with the 2nd Amendment as a right? A licensing requirement, even if non-discretionary, imposes an absolute prohibition on the exercise of a right under the Bill of Rights absent compliance with its provisions that nowhere are set forth in the Constitution. Roberts considered that illogical and inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. I wonder, now that Clement screwed things up for NYC gun owners, whether this issue could ever be raised again upon the ground that it was not raised or specifically ruled upon in Bruen and, therefore, the majority's opinion that shall-issue regimes pass constitutional muster was dictum and that another aggrieved petitioner should not be precluded from raising this issue that Clement refused to raise.
Justice Barrett did raise that concern about right v privilege in her two page concurrence.
And I stand corrected on my praise of Clement as I have been persuaded otherwise by truth. I thank you!
@@dunsmorethomasjames7631 Happy to have contributed my 2 cents. I'm a lawyer retired from the NYS Court System after 35 years of service, 17 of them as the Principal Law Clerk to a NYS Supreme Court Justice. All the cases involving the City of NY that were brought in our County were heard before us. Many of the most famous lawyers in the country appeared for trial before us on some really high profile cases. I'm just used to demanding a high level of lawyering skill and trial advocacy. This guy did not impress me at all.
I think scotus wants robust precedents to come to bolster Heller and Bruen decisions. Having all eggs in one basic is risky (see Roe decision).
It's only risky for plaintiffs who think that SCOTUS won't accept cert on an issue they are not ready to tackle. This majority is solidly pro 2nd Amendment. They already set they own precedents. But they can't rule on something that wasn't asked for or put in issue. As I observed, even Roberts, the most moderate of them, raised the question as to how a license could be constitutional at all. The Supreme Court was begging petitioner's counsel to ask for more. He didn't do it, but instead said that licenses are perfectly constitutional and he could give up the subway as being a sensitive location. It's one thing not to ask for "too much" when trying to get the Court to accept the appeal, but once it has, what was the attorney's excuse for not answering the Justices' questions that would certainly have resulted in a more robust decision?
Kudos to Paul Clement on presenting exemplary arguments on behalf of his clients.
His argument was good and his rebuttal brilliant. The only thing I can think to fault him on was the concession on subway carry. I thought that was a big mistake.
@@Anon54387 Agree. And the murderers killing people on the subway were obviously not carrying legally and almost certainly now allowed to own guns in New York. Did any of that "gun control" stop them? Were the police able to protect everyone at all times on the subways?
Violent criminals and gang members illegally carry illegal guns every day in California, New York, New Jersey, etc., so "gun control" can't be crime control. These infringements INCREASE CRIME by forcing the law abiding to be defenseless. That's illegal under Natural Law and Constitutional Law, which is based on natural law.
@@Anon54387 he got fired from the firm for winning a case
Clement did a terrible job of oral argument. He never raised the issue that licensing regimes, on their face, are unconstitutional, regardless of whether they are shall-issue, thus condemning NYC residents to the abusive licensing process every three years. He gave Justice Kagan the frivolous answer that he guesses he could "give up" the subway since his clients did not live in NYC and thus did not care about the subway, even though the subway is how NYers get around, and if they are barred from taking the subway and told, in effect, that they must walk from Queens to Manhattan if they want to carry, that their carry license would be practically useless. Thanks to his gifting the subway to the City, the NYPD is now drafting restrictions on carry permits that include making the subway a no-gun zone. Great job counselor. The bodega worker who gets out of work late at night and has to take the subway home from the Bronx will have to remain defenseless. I'm sure he really appreciates Clement's "exemplary" arguments. Clement also almost blew the standard of review issue when he said that he supposes intermediate scrutiny can be the proper standard of review, which prompted Amy Coney Barrett to come to the rescue and tell him, in sum and substance, "No , you really don't want to make that argument. If asked whether intermediate scrutiny is the correct standard of review for the 2nd Amendment, the correct answer is, 'No'." The Supreme Court majority already knew how they wanted to rule before oral argument. Oral argument is for the purpose of giving respective counsel the opportunity to clarify any questions or highlight their arguments as a final opportunity to guide the Court in making their final decision. As it is, the majority would have issued the same opinion even if Clement never showed up.
@@yannisvaroufakis9395 While I agree with your sentiments 100%, it seems Supreme Court cases have some tactical aspects and being 100% hard core as we would have liked, could also be a way to lose the case.
Precedents and case law are usually incremental and don't always get to the final end result instantly.
We recognized an in Heller an individual right independent of but related to militia duty.
In McDonald we extended the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
In NYSRPA we overturned the two step process incorrectly used by the lower courts and reaffirmed text as informed by history and tradition as the only test allowed.
This one-step test is so strong that it can be used to overturn most of the infringements, since there were nearly zero infringements in 1791 and 1868 respectively.
SO FUTURE REVIEWS OF SUBWAY CARRY LAWS WILL EVENTUALLY BE OVERTURNED.
Is this not a good thing?
The courts job is to enforce citizens rights (liberties) not balance them.
Actually they interpret not enforce, but I hear you. The executive branch (cops) enforce
No citizen is bound to obey any gun control laws.
That is what this ruling says. I keep hearing that its just a rollback of permitting rules. Wrong. It says you have a right to carry as a constitutional right. Not a gov privilege.
Murdoch versus Pennsylvania no state shall convert a right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it
Licenses, permits, and background checks are unconstitutionally illegal.
Ryan, please fix your audio. Using that distant microphone in that hollow room makes your audio quite mushy, excess bass, and very hard to understand.
Nowhere does it say common use or lawful purpose in the second amendment supreme law of the land.
To bear means to carry,wield, use.
I can not remember who originally said it and I don’t know it word for word but “ the bill of rights and the constitution don’t guarantee anything. They are just pieces of paper with words on them without people willing to fight and die to uphold what they say.”
Excellent presentation!
Experts 🤣😂🤣more like indoctrinated. U.C.C. 1-308 All right reserved with extreme prejudice.
I would assert that the NFA cannot by any means survive "text, history, and tradition" scrutiny.
That level of scrutiny just gutted a law that predates the NFA by decades.
The only law i can think of was the mention of gun powder being purposely stored away from housing so if got forbid it set off it wouldn't destroy houses which obviously is no longer necessary
"The Roberts court is an incremental court. It's not about massive leaps forward". Pretty ironic to hear that knowing when you fast forward to the next day and Dobbs v. Jackson overturns Roe v. Wade, rescinding a right for the first time in American history. Justice Roberts says in his concurrence that he did not see the need to overturn Roe and believes the court moved too quickly in doing so.
Very interesting.
Not true. Thomas even noted that courts have not been honoring the Heller decision as it was written by this SCOTUS. This time he spelled out the law for the lower courts so that they can get the ruling correctly.
Great presentation.
WE DO NOT NEED YOUR PERMISSION TO CARRY ANY ARMS!
NOT TO BE INFRINGED!
Great discussion. Thank you.
Isn’t the common use test itself an empirical approach?
I never see any police at the polling place.
I dont understand why court didn't apply history from 1791 to first restrictions at federal level as history time span to match.
Before 1791 history is no guide as the historical practices were considered bad necessitating the enumeration of the right to clearly state the United States would deviate intentionally from history (kings taking arms from people).
Treatment of arms in the hands of slaves are all unconstitutional as is slavery. Similar all restrictions on women are unconstitutional likewise (as not represented before woman's suffrage).
Leaving the historical comparison period undefined allows jim crow laws being used to justify gun control now.
Respectfully, @ 31:25 the 2 Militia Acts were enacted by the 2nd Congress. Not the first.
If a place is sensitive enough to ban weapons then it should be required to have security in place to ensure no one can enter who may be concealing a weapon. Like airports that have a security check point with metal detectors where upon entering the sensitive area a person can be confident that only law enforcement will possess weapons. This should be the requirement to limit concealed carry in “sensitive” places. If there is nothing but a law and a sign banning weapons the sensitive place is not more safe it actually makes it less safe because the law abiding individual will not have means to protect themself or others around them from people intending to do harm. Criminals do not follow laws or abide by signs they will take advantage of those laws and target those areas knowing that the law actually benefits them by the government disarming citizens who would normally be able to protect themselves and others around them.
Praise be to the God, who is blessed forever! Amen! Roe and Casey are overruled!
Great video
Cannot use historical or common use, before 1934 all guns including machine guns were historically and in common use.
Over 1/2 million machineguns are in common use for lawful purposes TODAY.
The ATF's own numbers verify this.
How long before the new process on getting a concealed carry takes effect ?
The process (training, background check, completely an application, etc.) are still in place. What has changed is the requirement to show a need to process a firearm and that your 2nd Amendment rights apply outside the home.
There should be NO permitting for carrying concealed.
----
NATIONWIDE "CONSTITUTIONAL" CONCEALED CARRY
THE SECOND AMENDMENT PREEMPTS ALL CONCEALED CARRY LAWS.
--
1. The federal constitutional protection of individual fundamental rights (Bill of Rights) has
long been understood to be the "floor" of protection
2. The Second Amendment never allowed for regulation on the manner of carry (though, at first, the Second Amendment applied only to Congress).
3. While some States did regulate the manner of carry prior to 1868, the application of the Second Amendment to the States in 1868 preempted State constitutions and laws which fell below the "floor" of protection for the right to bear arms and that included protection against regulation on the manner of carry. The States may not provide less protection than the "floor" once the Second Amendment was applied against the States.
--
A more detailed (and footnoted) argument might be as follows in the next reply comment . . .
After Bruen, the meaning concerning the Second Amendment is to be derived through history and there appears to be no historical dispute that the Second Amendment protected against Congress regulating concealed carry. See Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Littell, 90 (Ky. 1822) discussing the Second Amendment and the similar language of the Kentucky constitution. [[*1]] The Bliss decision in 1822 being mentioned in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243,248 (1846) as "The conclusion at which the court arrived was, that an act to prevent persons from wearing even concealed weapons is unconstitutional and void." Bliss was decided upon a premise that the national government could not imposed restrictions on concealed carry but that, if the state constitution allowed restrictions on concealed carry, it would be permissible for the State legislature to do so, the Second Amendment not yet being applied against the States. While Bliss struck down the concealed carry restriction, the constitution of the State of Kentucky was then altered by the addition of the clause "but the general assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms."
--
Other States also had constitutions which provided power to the State legislature to regulate concealed carry. See cases recognizing power of States to regulate concealed carry under the right to bear arms [[*2]] In the large, these cases presupposed that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States and, generally, allowed only for prohibiting concealed carry of weapons that were not usable for "common defense". Of those that flatly allowed regulation on the manner of carry that ability to regulate came with limitation [[*3]].
--
So, the legitimacy of all historic concealed carry regulation prior to adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was rooted only in power provided by some "State constitutions" and it was acknowledged that the national constitution would not permit any such regulation although that restraint only applied against the U.S. Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment changed all of that by its adoption in 1868 and application of the Second Amendment against the States (as recognized in McDonald (2010)). This is because the federal constitutional protection of individual fundamental rights has long been understood to be the "floor of protection"[[*4]]. The States may provide more protection of rights, but the States may not provide less protection that that provided by the federal constitution because of the supremacy of the federal constitution over all State constitutions. Thus, the Second Amendment of the national government which precluded any regulation of concealed carry now (after 1868) has preemption over any State constitution's power to regulate concealed carry. Thus, even though the power of state legislatures to regulate the carrying of arms by its citizens, and to punish the carrying of concealed weapons was generally recognized prior to 1868, the original meaning of the federal Second Amendment became the "floor" for protection of the right to bear arms in 1868 through adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
--
FOOTNOTES in next reply comment . . .
FOOTNOTES
[[*1]] From Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Littell, 90 (Ky. 1822) "The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint which the act in question most indisputedly imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted." [ . . . ] "in principle, there is no difference between a law forbidding the wearing of concealed arms, and a
law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. We may possibly be told, that although a law of either description may be enacted consistently with the constitution, it would be incompatible with that instrument to enact laws of both descriptions. But if either, when alone, be consistent with the constitution, which, it may be asked, would be incompatible with that instrument if both were enacted? The law first enacted would not be; for, as the argument supposes, either may be enacted consistent with the constitution, that which is first enacted must, at the time of enactment, be consistent with the constitution; and if then consistent, it cannot become otherwise by any subsequent act of the legislature. It must, therefore, be the latter act which the argument infers would be incompatible with the constitution. But suppose the order of enactment were reversed, and instead of being the first, that which was first had been the last; the argument to be consistent should, nevertheless, insist on the last enactment being in conflict with the constitution. So that the absurd consequence would thence follow of making the same act of the legislature either consistent with the constitution, or not so, according as it may precede or follow some other enactment of a different import. Besides, by insisting on the previous act producing any effect on the latter, the argument implies that the previous one operates as a partial restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms, and proceeds on the notion that by prohibiting the exercise of the residue of right, not affected by the first act, the latter act comes in collision with the constitution. But it should not be forgotten that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete as
it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."
--
[[*2]] Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 152, 157 (Tenn. 1840)
"The Legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence."
--
See also Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 3 Heisk. 165 (Tenn. 1871)
which presupposed that the 2A did not apply to the States.
--
Prior to 1870, the Tenn. Constitution did not allow for regulation of manner of carry but was amended in 1870. Even the amendment was held only to be that "power is given to regulate, with a view to prevent crime. The enactment of the Legislature on this subject, must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution." Id. at 181. With that understanding, the court held that the Act of the Legislature in question, so far as it prohibits the citizen “either publicly or privately to carry a dirk, sword cane, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket pistol,” is constitutional." Id. at 186.
--
See also Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876) which presupposed that the 2A did not apply to the States and prohibiting concealed carry was only for weapons not usable for "common defense".
"From the company in which the pistol is placed, and the known public mischief
which the Legislature intended by the act to prevent, it is manifest that the pistol intended to be proscribed is such as is usually carried in the pocket, or of a size to be concealed about the person, and used in private quarrels and brawls, and not such as is in ordinary use, and effective as a weapon of war, and useful and necessary for “ the common defense.”" Id. at 461.
--
[[*3]] See State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-17 (1840)
"We do not desire to be understood as maintaining, that in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of the Legislature has no other limit than its own discretion. A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional. But a law which is intended merely to promote personal security, and to put down lawless aggression and violence, and to that end inhibits the wearing of certain weapons, in such a manner as is calculated to exert an unhappy influence upon the moral feelings of the wearer, by making him less regardful of the personal security of others, does not come in collision with the constitution."
--
See also Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 249 (1846)
"The Constitution, in declaring that every citizen has the right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State, has neither expressly nor by implication denied to the Legislature the right to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be borne." with a limitation on manner regulation geared toward preventing such regulation from destroying the right. See "We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature." Id. at 250. The regulating was also limited in that it could not regulate open carry. See "We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void;" Id. at 251.
--
[[*4]]
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 174 (1994)("While States are, of course, free to provide more protection for the accused than the Constitution requires, see California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992, 1014 (1983), they may not provide less")
--
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 637 (1943)("The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures -- Boards of Education not excepted.")
--
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)("The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.") (EMPHASIS ADDED)
--
“The Constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. [6 Wheat.] 264, 380-81 (1821)
--
Not long ago, Justice Kavanaugh explained it this way: “the Constitution sets a floor for the protection of individual rights. The constitutional floor is sturdy and often high, but it is a floor. Other . . . government entities generally possess authority to safeguard individual rights above and beyond the rights secured by the U.S. Constitution.” American Legion v. American Humanist Assn., 139 S.Ct. 2067, 2094 (2019) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).
--
END OF ARGUMENT
The text explicitly states shall not be infringed.
What does this do for open carry? With a permit in Illinois?
First, I'm not a lawyer. While this case doesn't direct address open carry I think it may have an impact. If you consider text, history and tradition then you would have to determine does the 2nd Amendment address the issue and whether there is a history and tradition of open carry. The 2nd Amendment uses the term "bear arms". In my mind you can bear arms openly or concealed and the text doesn't limit the bearing to concealed. Honestly I don't know the history and tradition that well but if there is any accuracy in the movies I've seen about the 1800's is accurate open carry wss not at all unusual. That said if my understanding is correct there is nothing in the text, history and tradition that limits the right to concealed carry in public. It's going to be interesting to see how this all places out in each state. Of course legislators that are anti 2A will try to narrow their interpretation of the ruling as much as possible.
@@pmh1nic "there is nothing in the text, history and tradition that limits the right to concealed carry in public"
CORRECT!!!
THE SECOND AMENDMENT PREEMPTS ALL CONCEALED (AND OPEN) CARRY LAWS.
--
1. The federal constitutional protection of individual fundamental rights (Bill of Rights) has long been understood to be the "floor" of protection.
2. The Second Amendment never allowed for regulation on the manner of carry (though, at first, the Second Amendment applied only to Congress).
3. While some States did regulate the manner of carry prior to 1868, the application of the Second Amendment to the States in 1868 preempted State constitutions and laws which fell below the "floor" of protection for the right to bear arms and that included protection against regulation on the manner of carry. The States may not provide less protection than the "floor" once the Second Amendment was applied against the States.
With many of these training requirements would it not violate the American Disability Act?
Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights.
If two or more person's conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured to him by the constitution or laws of the united states, or because of his having so exercised the same...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years; or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section, or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Or laws means laws that do not violate the constitution of the united states of America.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law.
Whoever under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the united states...
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years;or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
A policy is a custom.
Laws means constitutional laws.
The second amendment the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be Infringed.
How come they didn't make national constitutional carry. Why do we need permission to exercise a right
They only rule narrow; this was actually an exception and they ruled wider than I thought they would.
@@dontransue9843 the courts in the leftists retard states is still going to abuse this
We DO NOT need permission. But we need the courts to day that. So, we need to make the right arguments.
NATIONWIDE "CONSTITUTIONAL" (CONCEALED & OPEN) CARRY
THE SECOND AMENDMENT PREEMPTS ALL CONCEALED AND OPEN CARRY LAWS.
--
1. The federal constitutional protection of individual fundamental rights (Bill of Rights) has long been understood to be the "floor" of protection.
2. The Second Amendment never allowed for regulation on the manner of carry (though, at first, the Second Amendment applied only to Congress).
3. While some States did regulate the manner of carry prior to 1868, the application of the Second Amendment to the States in 1868 preempted State constitutions and laws which fell below the "floor" of protection for the right to bear arms and that included protection against regulation on the manner of carry. The States may not provide less protection than the "floor" once the Second Amendment was applied against the States.
To keep means to buy and have.
Yes, keep, possess. Whether you buy it or build it yourself, you have a right to possess it.
The government is trying to make that only they have the right to bear arms🥺
Shoutout to Roe vs Wade FINALLY being overturned.
I am sorry, but anything other than constitutional carry is unconstitutional I don’t care what hoops you have to jump through. It doesn’t matter any obstruction to your ability to keep and bear arms is completely against our founding fathers dictates. And this suggestion that modest fees and administrative activities are OK are completely abhorrent to our constitution. I love you Mark and I know this video is over a year old but I have to respond to it that the comments here related to restrictions on our right to free exercise of the second amendment are Null and void. And my last comment will be that any law that is passed that is in violation (repugnant) of our constitution, should never be followed by the people via Marbury versus Madison.
Historically
All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void. Marbury V. Madison 5 US (2nd Branch)137,174,176(1803).
An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment. Ex parte Siebold,100 US-371(1879).
A law repugnant to the constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become law. The constitution supercedes all other laws and the individuals rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Marbury V. Madison 5 US 137(1803).
The US supreme Court
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment... In legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonett V. Vallier, 16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193(1908); Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886).
Agree.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT PREEMPTS ALL CONCEALED CARRY LAWS.
--
1. The federal constitutional protection of individual fundamental rights (Bill of Rights) has long been understood to be the "floor" of protection.
2. The Second Amendment never allowed for regulation on the manner of carry (though, at first, the Second Amendment applied only to Congress).
3. While some States did regulate the manner of carry prior to 1868, the application of the Second Amendment to the States in 1868 preempted (voided) State constitutionprovisions and laws which fell below the "floor" of protection for the right to bear arms and that included protection against regulation on the manner of carry. The States may not provide less protection than the "floor" once the Second Amendment was applied against the States.
Has there ever been any guidance from the court on exactly what “in common use” actually means. The issue I am wondering about is what period of time does that refer to? We always talk about originalism and going to the intent of the founders. Most of the time it seems, especially in 2A cases, we argue based on the original text as it would have been interpreted in the context of the time that it was written in. Doesn’t that philosophy lead to reasonable arguments that AR-15 type weapons didn’t exist then so they aren’t covered by 2A? I don’t mean they didn’t exist based on cosmetic factors but on capability factors. Clearly they didn’t have automatic and / or semiautomatic firearms, laser dot scopes, magazines holding 30 rounds, etc. I’m not in favor of anything restricting the 2A but it seems like there is a possible problem there when using an originalist interpretation.
So we can only exercise our 1st Amendment rights on equipment that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution? No internet, no radio, no TV, no printing presses that can run off hundreds of thousands of copies per day just a hand operated printing press from the 1790s?
In order for the common use test to have any meaning people must be able to choose what guns to buy. If the government outlaws a gun, and says it's not in common use therefore not protected under the 2A that's like the fox guarding the hen house. It's like a step backwards to the English Bill of Rights of 1688 which said there is a right to guns allowed by law. There's a reason the Americans changed as allowed by law to shall not be infringed.
@@Anon54387 First of all, your arguments are completely off point. You are entitled to your own opinion of course but your opinion on those things doesn’t in any way answer my question which was about what the case law says regarding the phrase “common use.” Your arguments don’t speak to that at all.
What do you think about the Roe v. Wade decision issued today?
Cmon man you don’t need a degree to figure out what “in common use” means. It’s simple: any weapon that can be lawfully purchased by any lawful citizen. Boom. You’re welcome
It wouldn’t be prudent but downright silly to think an amendment would have the means of nullifying itself. Then why write it if it could? “The right to keep and bear arms”. For all the naysayers that say “high caliber weapons” (whatever that means) wasn’t around when the 2nd was written…oh brother. The term “Arms” isn’t clarification, it’s CLASSIFICATION. “Arms” can be any weapon used to defend oneself against despotism/tyranny in order to preserve the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. Is it really that hard to conjure up a rational basis for it? I didn’t even graduate high school and y’all Ivy League dingbats are all “well 🥴 what does 🥴 “bear” 🥴 mean 🥴? Oh brother y’all are some special breed of rich stupid, not stupid rich.
Common use means popular now. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S., and is protected for individual ownership under Miller, Heller, etc. Militia members were and are expected to show up for militia duty with their personally owned arms in common use. Read Heller for a good summary.
The First Amendment isn't restricted to just quill pens.
Common Law uses precedent to extend existing concepts to new cases. That's why the First Amendment applies to the Internet and the Fourth Amendment applies to smartphones and laptops.
Why do you need guns?
WILD ANIMALS
We don’t need a reason and giving you one just blurs the issue. The Constitution guarantees our right to have one and that’s that. We don’t have to justify our reasons to be entitled to the right that the constitution gives us.
Ask a Ukrainian I think they would be able to answer your question pretty thoroughly.
Because..f**k off! That's why!
Why do you need free speech? Why do you need freedom of religion? Why do you need to have due process? Why do you need a trial by Jury? Why do you need a speedy and public trial? Guess you don't think we need any of these either.
Sensitive places is that's exactly where the criminals are