How the Supreme Court Made It Easier to Get a Gun | McDonald v. Chicago
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лют 2024
- Click this link to make some cash for giving your opinion! www.inflcr.co/SHK65 Thanks YouGov for sponsoring!
In episode 77 of Supreme Court Briefs, an old dude wants to buy a handgun to defend his home after it is robbed, but Chicago won't let him. So he sues their butts.
There's now an audiobook version of my Supreme Court book! amzn.to/3tr6dgl
Produced by Matt Beat and Beat Productions, LLC. All images/video by Matt Beat, Shannon Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by Gunnar Olsen, not Otis McDonald. You thought I was going to use music by Otis McDonald, didn't you?
Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: • Supreme Court Briefs
Related videos:
• Strengthening the Seco...
• How Animal Guts Gutted...
• What Does the Second A...
Here's an annotated script with footnotes: docs.google.com/document/d/1v...
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521
Other sources used/referenced:
supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cer...
www.nytimes.com/interactive/p...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @iammrbeat
For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat:
www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html
/ iammrbeat
How to support and donate to my channel:
Subscribe to @iammrbeat & hit the notification bell 🔔
Join for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: ko-fi.com/iammrbeat
Cameo: www.cameo.com/iammrbeat
Subscribe to my second channel: The Beat Goes On
Patreon for The Beat Goes On: / thebeatgoeson
Connect with me:
Links: linktr.ee/iammrbeat
Website: www.iammrbeat.com/
Podcast: anchor.fm/thebeatpod
Reddit: / mrbeat
@beatmastermatt on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Facebook: / iammrbeat
Instagram: / iammrbeat
Beatcord: / discord
TikTok: / iammrbeat
Merch:
matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/
www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/
sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
amzn.to/3fdakiZ
Affiliate Links:
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.com/?aff=12
Fourthwall: link.fourthwall.com/MrBeat
StreamYard: streamyard.com/pal/d/52723408...
#ushistory #supremecourt #apgovt
McDonald v. Chicago opened up a flood of lawsuits, many by the National Rifle Association, against local and state governments across the country. That said, it has not won ALL those lawsuits, and since the decision lower courts have upheld that bans on certain guns is still constitutional, as well as additional restrictions on how people can both get and carry guns. Today, around 45% of American households own at least one gun, and the United States, by far, has the highest gun ownership rate in the world.
I got soooo many requests for this one.
Which Supreme Court case should I cover for this series next?
Thanks to YouGov for once again sponsoring one of my videos. I love using YouGov to make easy cash! Tap my link, bruh: www.inflcr.co/SHK65 #YouGovPartner
Also, don't forget that I wrote a Supreme Court book! Woahness! amzn.to/3Otuo58
I have 3 in mind
Jacobellis vs Ohio
United States v. Darby Lumber Co
Carroll vs United States
I'm still waiting for my request
Bethel School District v. Fraser, surprised this hasn’t been covered by you yet.
@@matthewtyppo5727I second that and would add Hammer v. Daggenhart because of Darby.
Trump v. Anderson seems to be the inevitable one! Less than 2 weeks away, now.
It’d be pretty intimidating to argue in front of the Supreme Court with 5 justices holding rifles like that.
Not only are they armed, they are psychic!
At least the're protecting our gun rights
Not only do they have the right to bear robes, but they have the right to bear arms. Besides, the robes don't let them have bare arms.
I guess Ronald McDonald needed a gun to protect himself from the hambulgar
This a true fact.
You might not joke about that if you were in Mr McDonald's shoes. Imagine being afraid in your own house
@@michaelhall7546some people use humor as a coping mechanism to deal with their traumas
I have a meme of Ronald and all the other fast food mascots confronting Wimpy on Tuesday asking for their money 😂
@@iammrbeat In Chicago that’s very true. Chicago has lots of gun control have lots of crime. New Hampshire has a very little uncontrol and very little crime.
babe wake up a new mr beat supreme court briefs episode dropped
Thanks for being here early!
Now write something new 😊
@@balabanasiretidamn pal it’s not that serious
@@iammrbeat Yup. Also, I’m cool and I am not watching the other video because I already saw it and know the same scenario for the DC vs Heller case.
Supreme Court Briefs is the best Mr. Beat series, no other UA-camr covers supreme court cases like this in such an enjoyable way.
So the dissenting justices argued that owning a firearm isnt a "fundamental right" despite it being literally right after the first amendment on the Bill of Rights. I'm sure those same justices would argue that freedom of speech, press, and assembly ARE "fundamental rights". Indeed, for a good while its been case precedent that the first amendment protects you from any government entity, be it state, local, or federal govt or even from police.
So given that both the first and second amendment are on the same document, from a constitutional perspective it seems silly to me to argue that one is a fundamental right and one isnt.
Maybe because "fundamental" doesn't refer to the specific laws of the United States or any other single country. It means the same thing as the "inalienable rights" referenced in the Declaration of Independence, the natural rights of mankind that should exist in *every* country (albeit some still don't in some countries). Most countries don't have a right to bear arms, and their human rights records are no worse because of it.
Now whether that's a legitimate argument in this case, that's a different question.
When a supreme court justice says something is settled and is precedent be worried they are looking to change it. Evidence: Amy coney barret said roe v wade was established and we know what happened with that.
@Compucles This is what fascinates me so much about law. It comes down to interpretation of definitions of specific words. Sometimes I wonder if the founding fathers knew how close we would be ripping apart their exact words and trying to interpret them. Maybe they would've written it differently if they knew 😆
No such thing as 'settled' law...never has been that way, in any country at any time...
@@mrwess1927 Amy coney barret said roe v wade was established and we know what happened with that.
-Any prior ruling is necessarily precedent, but any overturning involves changing precedent. Otherwise something like the Dred Scott case would never be over ruled.
Difference is Constitutional rights are enumerated, and extrapolations like Roe or Scott were not enumerated.
I think you should consider doing a video on NYSRPA v. Bruen. It would finish off the trilogy of impactful Supreme Court cases in regards to firearms. Plus with its recent decision, it is still being applied today and may clear up any confusion on its decision and opinions.
Impactful Supreme Court cases so far. The states are being quite resistant along with some lower courts in applying these rulings, like the previous 10 years after Heller and McDonald, and thus more cases are ending up before the Supreme Court.
NYSRPA v. Bruen would be a great subject to do a video on. The ruling impacted my life because I live in Los Angeles where up until 2023 it was very difficult to get a concealed carry permit and they were only being issued to wealthy and famous people. Because of the ruling, I was able to get a permit because local law enforcement agencies (in California, CCW permits are issued by county sheriffs and city police, not state government) had to change their policies to comply with the court ruling. It's nice that because I was able to get a permit to carry I can now exercise my constitutional rights.
I was just about to make a comment asking for this, here here!
The amount of guns an individual has doesn't determine how dangerous they are
However, their mental state and means to express it does.
@@josephpostma1787I own over 20 guns and I still serving in the Army and I’m in charge of my current units Arms room with 200 M-4s and dozens of machine guns. Does that concern you?
@@Warhead_235Do you have a history of mental illness? Do you plan on shooting innocent people? If not yeen got nun to worry bout
@conservative_hustler_fitness
Are you mentally ill???
You are for sure a meat head, but are you mentally ill???
@@Warhead_235No, as you would past any psychological tests as you are an upstanding person which I thank for your service.
Other non upstanding citizens however? I would be concerned. And I believe you would be as well, given that you too would use your weapons for self defense.
It’s not wrong to prevent putting guns in the wrong hands.
Thank you for your service again.
Read Clarence Thomas’ concurrence for the history of gun control in the US, which was largely racism. Thomas wanted to overturn the crippling reading of the Slaughterhouse Cases, which was the start of the Counter Reconstruction.
That's a pretty solid point. But it doesn't change the fact that more guns = more dead people. This has been backed up by evidence many times. The leading cause of death among children is guns. We have more mass shootings in a year than all other developed nations combined.
I'm pro gun ownership, especially in the home and in controlled environments like shooting competition, hunting, and general gun training and practice. I also think it's very difficult to control the proliferation of at least basic firearms. But there has to be limits. Gun powder and bullets should be highly regulated and open and public carry is ludicrous.
@@lephtovermeet But it doesn't change the fact that more guns = more dead people
-Yet the group that owns the most guns in the US has a homicide rate below the national average.
This has been backed up by evidence many times.
-No it hasn't. People have improperly drawn conclusions, but if you look at ownership by demographic and their respective homicide rates, there is not a positive correlation between ownership and homicide
e leading cause of death among children is guns
-It isn't, read the methodology, they include ages that aren't children and exclude actual ages for children. 0-18 this claim is not true.
We have more mass shootings in a year than all other developed nations combined.
-Because we have a uniquely violent demographic, which accounts for the majority of those shootings.
Gun powder and bullets should be highly regulated and open and public carry is ludicrous.
-Open carry nor handloading are not the issue, not even remotely.
@@thinkharder9332 FBI statistics, I believe 2021 or 2022, around 100 dead in 60 mass shootings that year. FBI's definition thereof is (paraphrased) any attempt to cause a mass casualty event in a public place. Other statistics deliberately include much broader definitions in order to inflate the numbers. For context, firearm homicides number around 20,000 a year, heart disease 700,000. 100 a year is nothing. The Pew Research Center agrees with me here, that trying to stop mass shootings in particular through reduced access to firearms won't meaningfully reduce gun-related homicides. In fact, for crimes for which there was data, 2021 again I believe, handguns were used in 59% of homicides, rifles 3%, and shotguns 1%.
And, for anyone who says 2A is about hunting, it's worth considering the context, both within the document and the time it was written.
"Well-regulated" in those days did not mean well-restricted, but well-trained and well-equipped. The National Guard did not exist, there was no standing army. Militiamen supplied their own arms. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the phrase "well-regulated militia" most probably meant that people should be allowed to keep and bear arms, so a militia/standing army could be raised, as had been done during the American Revolution. That is what the founding fathers were considering here, that people should be allowed to own arms in order to organize themselves against tyrrany. The modern descendent of these militias is the National Guard, but applying this modern redefinition back to something written in the 18th century is a little dumb.
Additionally, the first 10 amendments, organized into the Bill of Rights as they are, are by and large a collection of civil rights and liberties given by birthright to the citizens of the US, guaranteed by the government. Especially within this context, the meaning of the clause "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" should be clear. In those days, "Arms" meant any and every weapon in existence and/or common use. People owned cannons, small arms far superior to the muskets of the day, you name it. It wasn't about hunting, unless you were hunting redcoats. Saying a rifle is "military grade" only means that the people should be allowed to own it.
The Sharps Carbines that John Brown & co. used to fight in Bleeding Kansas and at Harpers Ferry were far more capable than any rifle or musket used by the US military at the time (think AR vs bolt-action). Those were acquired legally. If someone says the 2A wasn't ever used to fight tyranny, you can point them to his actions.
@@thinkharder9332Everything you have said is a bunch of bullshit constantly paraded that objectively has been disproven by constant streams of statistics .I can only assume these talking points are only brought foward all the time because they depend on the classic reality that one lie requires a hundred truths to dismantle it .
Also , can you explain to me why Mass Shootings in the United States only started happening as a trend AFTER Gun Control acts like the """Assault Weapon Ban""" of 1994 and not when you could get a Light Machine Gun through the Mail ? .
If Firearms being highly regulated leads to low homicide rates , can you explain to me why countries like México and Brazil have such high homicide rates and multiple mass shootings a year (Real ones , not made up ones) despite having strict disarmament policies ? .
@@thinkharder9332 Well, the real issue is that the easy accessibility of guns in general indirectly leads to easy illegal accessibility of guns for criminals, the ones who do jack up the homicide rate with guns.
In a country like Japan, their very strict gun control laws (limited only to the military and law enforcement) work very well in cutting down the homicide rate, as even the Yakuza have trouble obtaining large numbers of guns.
However, the history of the United States means that Americans in general will never accept needing to give up guns for legal purposes, plus there are a lot more places and wildlife to hunt compared to many smaller countries.
If you think about it- Four….almost a majority…. Justices ruled it was okay for local laws to violate the Bill of Rights. That’s a very scary thing!
In fairness, the constitution when it was made was intended to apply only against the federal government. It was only after the passage of the 14th amendment and subsequent developments throughout the early 20th century that lead to some federal constitutional rights being 'incorporated' against the states. The courts also decided on 'selective incorporation', whereby only certain things would be incorporated, so for instance grand juries aren't necessary at the state level.
In fairness it makes no sense that the core aspects of the 2nd wouldn't also be incorporated against the states. @@bearmarco1944
@bearmarco1944 I d9nt quite get why states can violate federal laws and rights in exchange for their own, and at the same time, there are circuit court appeals that implicate multiple states for what is and isn't legal, and then there's the Supreme Court that forces all states to adhere to their rulings. Seems like it's too contradictory
@@ghost8487 Because the constitution of each state is intended to only apply within that state, right? In the same way that Florida's constitution isn't binding on Georgia, the federal government's constitution isn't binding on Illinois because they're different jurisdictions. The constitution exists mainly to organise the federal government and describe how it will work, how the HoR will work, how the presidency will work, etc. The bill of rights were the bargain that *states* demanded the federal government be required fo follow, and they were originally designed to protect states and citizens of states. It was only after the 14th amendment that the bill of rights was thought to apply to the states. This was more because judges wanted to create universal rights and less because it was legally correct, and the constitution's bill of rights gave a lot more authenticity to the rights than 'it's just natural law' or 'it's just commonsense'.
@@bearmarco1944 interesting, my interpretation is that the constitution is the highest law of the land that overarches all forms of government under them. Typically state and local governments are not immune from abiding by the bill of rights
It’s clear that violence was rampant in Chicago when mostly all guns were banned. It should be common sense that criminals don’t follow laws. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens are left defenseless.
Keeping LAW ABIDING citizens without guns won’t lower gun crime unless the criminals are also without guns. Which is impossible to do. Sacrificing your rights for a false sense of safety is plain stupid.
Why are we the only country with this much gun violence then? And where do you think criminals are getting the guns from?
@@scottblubaugh that’s not true. There’s many countries with high levels of gun violence.
The US gun deaths statistic is high because we have a lot of suicides that used guns. (Not to say the US has higher suicide rates than other countries, but guns are a popular choice to commit suicide here.) gun suicides account for about 60% of all gun deaths in the US
There was a lot more to this case. It was the catalyst for Moore v Madigan. The guy lived in the only state in the country without a process to procure a permit to lawfully carry a concealed firearm. 49 states have a process, Illinois... nothing. One of the greatest SCOTUS decisions regardess of how folks feel about firearms.
Of course there's always a lot more to the story. But these UA-camrs don't care for truth
@44-SWAGNUM-MAGA-X right. The video wasn't too bad but the title is ridiculous.
@@44-SWAGNUM-MAGA-X There is always more to the story, but if the video and the whole story tell a similar tale, then the youtuber did just fine.
@@rhodeislandfirearmsownersl9916 Go to the Swiss, poland or czech they have lot of gunowners but the most owners arent fools, in the USA are Lot of fools without skills or trigger discipline
Self defense is a human right.
I’d argue this case was a mere formality compared to Heller. It was only a matter of time after Heller that someone would bring a case to incorporate Heller against the states as this case did.
I disagree with your conclusion. Even something as simple as applying a decision about a federal law to the states is a big deal.
I'm still waiting for those folks to defend my right to carry ANY ARMS since the 2A is not explicit. The Heller decision was absolutely ridiculous.
@@OneAfricanRace With a federal permit, you can own a fully function tank, cannon included. Surprisingly, though, federal law makes it illegal to own nukes (which is a good thing, but I'm surprised Congress had so much foresight).
Mr Beat! I work in Corrections and us DO's utilize the Sandin V Connor case IMMENSELY for our justice system. It would be amazing if you could cover that court case, as it goes really unrecognized until someone unfortunately ends up in Jail.
For anyone wondering, it basically allows Jails to make punishments more often as long as its done within their rights and in humane methods. If we didn't have this case, inmates would be taking advantage of every little inconvenience and unnatural or uncomfortable situation for a lawsuit.
Colion Noir would have fun with this one.
Yes he would.
Give it a few days/weeks.
I am once again asking you to please do West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish. The Switch in Time That Saved Nine is perfect for the SC briefs.
It's coming very soon!
@@iammrbeat OMG... I'm so excited. Thank you, Mr. Beat!
@@alman666 I’m not even American but I got the Bernie Sanders reference 😂
honestly, how is FDR's threat of court packing NOT an illegal attempt to threaten a judge?
Always happy to see a new Briefs video
Your voice and narration style makes learning history fun for me
Only 45% of houses have a gun? We gotta get those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers
Love your videos, there always make my day awesome and are an opportunity to learn, thank you!
Another great video!
I'm not an American, all of the videos you make do a fantastic job of teaching me more about the systems, history and culture of the USA.
Thank you and keep up the great work! 😀
You're not American *yet*
Thank you. Come to America!
Your videos have helped so much with my AP Government class! We were literally just talking about this! Thanks Mr. Beat!
This makes me happy. :)
New Mr.Beat video!!
Do Top 10 Best and Worst U.S. Representatives
I have so much more research to do before I'm ready to take on such huge videos.
That is like thousands of people to review but that'd be cool
Great video, Mr. Beat!
Thank you!
I agree with the court on this one
Hey mr. Beat would you ever think of talking about the history and importance of states and what a certain state has provuded to the country? Like industry, arts, politics and such? I think it would be a very fun lesson to learn from you. Thanks for all the wonderfully educatuonal videos you make 👍
I don't get why Chicago and DC thought they could just get away with not letting people own guns. I'm all for reasonable gun control measures like preventing convicted felons from owning guns but once you pass a certain point, you're basically just saying "we don't care what the Constitution says, we're going to do what we want anyways".
welcome to American Politics where the constitution is toilet paper.
They *were* allowing people to own guns. They just couldn't be handguns. They could still own all the rifles and other legal kinds that they wanted. The 2nd Amendment does not specify *which* arms you are allowed to bear, just that you have the right to own guns in general.
@@Compucles”the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” - so any gun control is unconstitutional. This is the same logic as “well the founding fathers would have never imagined AR’s so of course they’re unconstitutional” which is the same as saying “well the founding fathers would have never seen the internet so of course free speech isn’t protected.” It doesn’t specify which guns you can or can’t have, because the idea of distinguishing this is unconstitutional itself.
Banning a large class of firearms that are in common use is definitely unconstitutional. @@Compucles
@@camwhiteastro but they do tho. Automatic weapons aren’t legal
This is my favorite series on UA-cam
Man, that's something. The debate over gun control.
This video was awesome, thank you so much for making this content accessible to people like me.
When my day couldnt get any better Mr.Beat releases a new video God is soo good
Yeah my favourite series is back 🎉🎉🎉
Yessss I love these series
I am a university history instructor, and I give a lecture on the history of gun rights/gun control in my American Pluralism course. I show your D.C. v. Heller video to my students and provide this one as a resource as well. I actually include links to lots of your videos in the lecture slides I provide to my students for almost all of my American history lectures. Thank you so much for being a great resource!
Great video! Will you make a video about Dobbs v. Jackson?
I love you Mr. Beat!!
Personal opinion ofc, but since the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed", then there shouldnt be any regulations on firearms. I think this is also the basis of justice thomas's opinion in nyc rifle v breur( hey that'd be a good case video too!)
Idk how I feel about about the 2nd amendment. Only 2 other countries, Mexico and Guatemala, have a constitutional right to to bear arm.
@hydromic2518 the way I see it, the only way one can guarantee their rights is to be able to own firearms
That's not what that means. As long as you can own at least one kind of gun, your right to guns in general is not being infringed.
@@Compucles Why? And don’t come at me with any musket bullshit. Legally, those aren’t even firearms.
What a crazy coincidence, I remember reading about this case in high school but not remembering much. I was wanting to learn more about it, opened UA-cam and what do you know! A new Mr. Beast video at the top of my recommended.
Thanks for this, Mr. Beat! I’m taking AP Gov. as a sophomore in high school right now, and this is one of the required cases! I’m sure you’ll probably see an uptick in views from other students like me in a few months, haha 😅
That's honestly a big reason why I made this. :)
@@iammrbeat That’s so cool of you, thanks! Your court videos are really good, to the point where my civics teacher last semester (who actually said he met you in person!) would show your videos in class as a crash course before we delved deeper into them
My AP students will appreciate this video. thank you so much Matt!!
I remember this ruling
I do, too. I think that means we're old. lol
I'm happy for your videos (late again)
I love your supreme court briefs , they are my favorite series on youtube . Please do more 2nd amendment Cases like New york v Bruen. ❤️
Heller v DC is another huge one.
That was a good opinion
This was a great video like always, but i have to ask. What is the name of the song you used at the beginning? It's so funky. 😂
Another great video Mr. Beat but the law in this video only existed because Illinois, especially northern IL/Chicago, is VERY anti-gun and want to put as many restrictions on acquiring firearms as possible without risking any federal intervention. The entire FOID system Illinois has is anti-Constitutional at its basis and the SCOTUS needs to strike it down like they did with this case.
It also doesn’t help that our state’s Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge how anti-2A the FOID system is. It’s also notable that our notoriously anti-2A governor helped to pay for the election campaigns for 2 of the Illinois Supreme Court Justices, which keep ruling on FOID in our governor’s favor. Political corruption much?
Not only have I seen those 2 videos, I’m about to Austin because they were so good
Didn't watch the video yet, but did you talk about how Thomas wanted to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases in this case? That's another case you talked about
Edit: I'm glad you mentioned Slaughterhouse
if you watch the video you will find out
@@bettermetal8306
Yup. I watched and it's great.
What kind of comment is this 😂 Watch the video first
Rare Thomas W?
Hey Mr Beat ; its a little known fact but earlier case law ; Bliss and Nunn actually established the "Individual Right " 150 years before Heller .
Also most states worded the right as such in their own State Constitutions , many before the USC was ratified in fact
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. " PA State Constitution 1776
I'm about to take measure pro 114 in Oregon through state Supreme Court.
Although used my brief to win on federal level
Heyyy Mr beat big fan for these videos I’ve watched every single one, I case that I would request is Kennedy v Louisiana. Thanks and much love from the class of 2026
Could you make a briefs video about Congress’s taxing or spending powers?
I think of US v Kahriger or South Dakota v Dole, for example.
I love the disco soundtrack
Mah Man! Thanks Mac!
Return of the Mac
you should do on on Minersville School District v. Gobitis
I'm not American but I love this series. Keep on going, Mr. Beat!
I'd watch Mark and the Four Boxes Diner channel and Langley Outdoors Academy. Always seek out other viewpoints.
3:58 The SCOTUS Justices holding shotguns made me giggle abit
Finally, all AP Government required SCOTUS cases have been covered by Mr Beat! Never thought I’d see the day
I said this before in another video of yours, but I think you should have added James Pearson to the honorable mentions of best US Senators. He was a Republican from Kansas like Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum who opposed the bombing of Cambodia and Laos, supported a health care reform bill in 1971 and was for campaign finance reform and consumer protection.
Maybe also Wayne Morse and Mark Hatfield, who were against Vietnam.
Also, great video.
Mr Beat, another good vid. Have you done a SCOTUS briefs video on states "rights" to secede from the US. Nikki Haley recently "defended" States rights to do so, even though my understanding is the Supreme Court has said States do not have said right.
A video about the best and worst Supreme Court decision would be great
Do Burwell v. Hobby Lobby next!
Think of prohibition. When we banned alcohol, did that mean nobody ever drank or still had access to it? No. In fact, access to alcohol increased via the underground market and bootleggers, and drinking in many areas of the nation increased, as did liver cirrhosis. If we have something legalized, we can regulate it easier and restrict access to it. whereas if we make it illegal, the underground trade of it will expand drastically and access to it might also increase. there already is an underground market for weapons in the us, if we ban all weapons, that illicit trade is guaranteed to grow, and access to guns might increase as a result. Thus the best way to keep ownership of weapons down, is to keep weapons legal but to regulate them. Don’t let history repeat itself, we cannot ban weapons and make them illegal, otherwise there will be major consequences. Also, the more restrictions we place on weapons, the larger the underground market grows in order to cover the demand of the weapons that have recently been banned or restricted. Thus we cannot regulate weapons to heavily or else we might increase the black market sale of them. There has to be the right amount of regulation on weapons, we cannot go over the top with those regulations. *cough, California*
By the way, I’m surprised by the assessment that a handgun should be better for home defense than a pump-action shotgun. I had a little old lady as a neighbor who apparently put intruders to flight with the sound of a shell being chambered.
Glad that he got to get his handgun to protect himself.
Even though statistically that puts him in greater danger.
@@klauswigsmiththat doesn’t mean bro should be defenseless
@@klauswigsmiththat makes 0 sense. He didnt own a handgun and still got put in plenty of danger, screw your "well statistically" nonesense.
@@klauswigsmith Individual circumstances overrule general statistics.
@@klauswigsmith No it doesn't. Stats fail to account for suicidal people who buy and then harm themselves immediately vs lifelong owners.
Kinda shocked it took this long to have this happen
Crazy timing for this video considering you’re from Kansas City too :(
Tennessee v. Garner would be a good one to cover.
Description error:episode 77 than episode 78
Hey, Mr. Beat. Can you please do a video on United States v. Paramount Pictures in a future Supreme Court Briefs video?
And it was a damn great decision. Rights apply everywhere.
Mr Beat, you should do one of the cases involving Madalyn Murray O’hare
You should do a video on bruen v us
The Supreme court case every founding father would have supported. Except maybe Alexander Hamilton....
Hamilton was pro standing army, which the 2nd amendment was written to dissuade. But I'm pretty sure he supported the individual right of arms ownership?
@@DerWaidmann_ yes. Hamilton wanted a standing army cuz he believed the militias weren't enough against potential threats. He didnt have some vedetta against the right to bear arms.
This was a fantastic case and I was very disappointed to see justices dissent in this case as this was a slam dunk imo for MacDonald. The carry of weapons can be restricted but something I found lacking in this video is also mentioning while AWB have been found to stand in some circuits in other circuits they have been found unconstitutional (ultimately I believe they will be found unconstitutional in the SC)
Is the beat goes on your second channel?
Bro my AP gov class went over this case yesterday wtf
I watched your video about why it feels like we’re friends and I watch oversimplified videos that is one thing about me
You make me love ap gov
Can you do a video about a supreme court case over a violation of the 13th amendment 🙏 I'm really curious
its interesting to see how new it is for the second amendment to be seen as applying to states
The 2nd Amendment was a measure to arm the people so that they could form state militias, the purpose has always applied to the states if not the states exclusively
I live in gun loving south central PA and not much killing here - I'm glad I can just walk in to a gun store and buy practically whatever i want and walk out with it in my hands...just get the background check and lay my money down.
Sadge
@@toooydoeur no - it's just the way it should be for all law abiding citizens - it's perfect.
@@freeman7296 lmao
@@toooydoeurHe's right.
Are you making a video on the life of another President (like your videos on Hoover and Eisenhower)? If so, who's next?
A ban on any gxn or ammxnition or capacity or place/manner in which one can be carried is an infringement.
Its a new video but I gotta say, I'm pleasantly surprised by the comment section. I figured it would be much angrier down here XD
Funny how we covered this just a week ago in APGov!
Good.
Why can’t I get alerts for this channel? It always says error
Literally just read this case for a class.
RAV vs City of St. Paul is a good one. Deals with a - very controversial - aspect of of the First Amendment.
Can you do supreme court case Blessing Vs Freestone 520 US 1997
Hell. Freakin. Right
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen would be a good follow up since it has affirmed the McDonald and Heller decisions and is currently being applied in new lawsuits
How can they say the right to own a gun is not fundamental .. I don’t know how much clearer the 2A can be..
The 2nd amendment being interpreted as a right for an individual to own a gun has only seriously existed for like the last 50 years
@@17RedKnight presser v Illinois (1886) .. Supreme Court was very clear in this ruling and that was nearly 140 years ago .. don’t be dumb
@@JBoo00 for an individual to own a firearm as a right??? I looked up the presser v Illinois supreme Court ruling and found that it simply says that states are free to have their own rule over the 2nd amendment, not the federal government. And actually the same McDonald case that Mr Beat made this video on overruled that exact case saying it's ultimately up to the federal government to rule on the 2nd amendment, not the states. Read any book on the history of gun laws in the US and you'd see that the idea of any individual having a right to a gun is fairly recent
@@17RedKnight “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government”
Maybe read the actual decision and not someone recapping it little boy.
@@JBoo00 I'm arguing about the interpretation of an individual right to own a gun is relatively new. "All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia". "So as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security". "Their duty to the general government". The text you cited from the ruling is more on the traditional interpretation that we had for the first 200 years of our history, that the right to bear arms is more so on having a trained militia ready to be called up for national security. The right for an individual to own a gun just cause they want to is the new interpretation which has only existed for the last 50 years or so
Did you not read the Bruin decision ??
When is Janus v AFSCME?
You should do a worst 10 laws in american history
100% A+ decision
This is an important video. My favorite part is when Mr. Beat was on the toilet.