Special Session II: Second Amendment: Aftermath of Bruen; What's Next at the State Level? [NLC 2022]
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 09. 2024
- In June 2022, the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, requiring courts to follow the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment in evaluating the constitutionality of modern-day gun control laws. Our panel will discuss what Bruen means for Second Amendment rights, gun control laws, and the landscape of litigation over them as well how courts have been applying Bruen.
Featuring:
Mr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Prof. William Merkel, Associate Professor of Law, Charleston School of Law
Prof. Mark Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law, 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
Moderator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
![The Judge’s Role in Choosing a Successor [NLC 2022]](/img/n.gif)
The basic fundamental purpose of having laws in this country is to secure the rights and freedoms of the people, not empowering the government. If not, our government as a whole serves no purpose and should be abolished.
We the people don't need permission from any court,state,or the federal government to keep and bear arms.
Every law maker in this country should be made to watch this viedo
Mark Smith is on another level. Brilliant.
Mike you did a great job presenting. Love your research and channel
The second amendment IS the policy choice. The balancing test has already been done. The 2A is the result.
Permits, licenses are unconstitutional infringements depriving American citizens of their constitutionally protected second amendment rights.
We the people are the militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is proof of that fact.
NFA, GCA unconstitutionality dates from the time of their enactment, therefore they are null and void not legally binding enforceable laws.
GREAT PANEL DISCUSSION 👏👌👍
There were no hunting, fishing, traping regulations in the 17,1800s all Americans had to hunt, fish,grow,raise their own food to survive, grocery stores didn't exist back then.
Thank you
Hunting, fishing, traping are rights protected under the 4th,9th,14th amendments, therefore all regulations are unconstitutional and illegal.
I think there's a better way to resolve the issue of whether to take the history definition and intent of a term or law versus the evolved modern argument. Process the outcome, worst case scenario,(war) and the winner decides definition which will most likely be whatever they understand at that time. Therefore, logically, you should always take the general populations mean understanding and go from there. For example, all men are created equal, we American humans agree, mostly, that it's not just men.
I hope that made sense but even if they have a view of the founders intent being more relevant it's still the modern interpretation of that
And as far as tears scrutiny they should get rid of it because no one in the general population including government officials care what tier a person is guilty of it's all the same same protection should apply
@@goddess_of_KratosPo lice haven't a obligatory preordaination to save anyone from harm or injury. See U Valdi for example.
Men has been a synonym for humankind for centuries. The problem with taking the popular understanding and belief about an amendment is exactly what we see with the 2nd Amendment. For decades, we've seen people decide that it IS NOT an individual right and the result is all this gun control. That's the danger with your take on this.
Bearing arms means carrying weapons (arms) anywhere and everywhere in the continental united states of America.
The standard should be what the constitution says it means , SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. it's understandable those in all levels of gov want to limit and abuse the rights of the ppl but eventually you will push a society to push back
The only “infringement” that is worth regulating is that of weapons that are not able to be physically _carried_ for offense or defense, which is a historical tradition in America. Other than that there should be no firearm laws whatsoever.
And the 14th amendment section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states
@@frawdulent No. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that only those arms which can be carried can be owned. For instance, people did legally own cannon in the 18th century. I doubt anyone can carry a cannon.
A well regulated militia means a well armed people with weapons that are in good working order.
Regulated
To adjust so as to ensure accuracy, to put or keep something in good order.
Infringed
Actively break the terms of, act so as to limit or undermine, encroach on.
Shouldn't be allowed to use English/British law,or kings law, America is not England or Britain,we don't answer to any king or his laws.
14th amendment section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states
Shall not be Infringed so the second amendment cannot be changed or taken away.
Amendment 14 section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states
Using the commerce clause is unconstitutional
Nowhere in the second amendment text do the words law abiding exist.
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.
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 ten years, 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.
The constitution of the united states of America, supreme law of the land.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment 14 section 1
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE state, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
U.C.C. 1-308 all rights reserved with prejudice, Freedom of speech.
All felons have the second amendment constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, constitutional rights are inalienable rights.
Inalienable
Cannot be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
Edward the third is irrelevant moot,the laws of England and Britain are moot, irrelevant.
The guy in the brown jacket blue tie should be fired he shouldn't be teaching anyone anything.
I am a gun owner and I am opposed to the disarming. I am also completely convinced that every right given by the Constitution comes with a connected responsibility. You may find the attempts by certain parties to pass gun ownership and carry restrictions as unconstitutional and in violation of your 2nd amendment. However the founders did not have a lens to see the nation we would become and the danger the 2nd amendment interpretations would pose to the general public in the way of safety and the ability to enjoy life, liberty anf the pursuit of happiness by victims of the exploitation of this right by special interest groups whose main objective is profits from the manufacture and sale of firearms. How can we possibly provide safety for an ever growing public without the ability to make laws that are necessary for safety reasons? Mark Smith argues the 2nd amendment with no acknowledgement or recognition for the disturbing and ever increasing gun violence problem that is exclusive to America. He mentions Englands failure to protect gun rights however since the deadly school shooting that brought about the current restrictions in Britain, the US has dealt with 335 deadly school shootings. Where is the responsibility that the right requires? Who bears that responsibility? Innocent school children? Do people like this and our current politically driven SCOTUS truly expect the American public to believe that our founders would agree with the sacrafice of innocent children to facilitate gun manufacturers and groups such as NRA the right to profit with no regard for the loss of life. The failure of those who abuse this right to address the continuing issue of gun violence is a subject of great importance to the American people and I see this failure to participate in finding a solution as the very thing that endangers the 2nd amendment most. I see no difference in those who would delete this right and the gun nuts that allow the abuse to result in dead children over and over.
The founders came from a world that had a homicide rate many times that of the US homicide rate today. Didn't have the lens you say? They lived it. In the late 1600s the homicide rate on a per capita basis in the US was many times what is today. It came down to around 1 per capita at the time of the revolution due to national unity, not gun laws. There were VERY few gun laws in the US at the time of the founding.
You're just ultimately using collectivist language to justify laws that extremely narrow the scope of the right, reducing it down to a privilege to be exercised by an extremely limited subset of the population or attempts to ban guns in common use (as evidenced by your reference to profits which is a tried-and-true anti-gun talking point)
@@thechaz9756 do you wish to have me believe that the gun manufacturers dont fund NRA who then backs Republican polititians and SCOTUS justices? Dont bother.
@@thechaz9756 another person so obsessed with this right that you are willing to allow the innocent to pay for your right.
@@robinhood20253And now you've revealed who you really are. You weren't kidding anyone with your "I'm a gun owner but" argument.
You're an enemy of the bill of rights point blank, you deserve to be treated as such moving forward.
@@robinhood20253 Of course the NRA backs Republicans genius. It's obvious Democrats (you) are domestic enemies to the Bill of Rights. What sane NRA member would advocate to fund your political party? Jesus.
Freedom, abortion, & guns! It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist’s intellect, to know that no one wants to be a slave, abortion should be an alternative to a life/lives of condemnation, & guns are over kill, but it did, & or it does take rocket scientists intellect to come to a/the consensus about all of the above! #SafetyShouldntBeASecretServiceReservedExclusivelyForThePresidentCelebritesRoyaltyAndOrThosePackingHeat
Rocket science is a farse, mostly... like nasa and moon stories, space cartoons etc. Let's give ourselves the credit we deserve on intelligence already.