![TALKSONLAW](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 244
- 1 070 829
TALKSONLAW
United States
Приєднався 24 січ 2015
TALKSONLAW - LAW EXPLAINED THROUGH VIDEO
The world's smartest lawyers tackle today's most fascinating and controversial topics-from privacy, gay rights, tech innovations, sports controversies, to food law. #KnowTheLaw
For for more TOL Briefs, Talks, and legal insight, visit www.talksonlaw.com/.
The world's smartest lawyers tackle today's most fascinating and controversial topics-from privacy, gay rights, tech innovations, sports controversies, to food law. #KnowTheLaw
For for more TOL Briefs, Talks, and legal insight, visit www.talksonlaw.com/.
Garland v. Cargill: Why SCOTUS Overturned the Ban on Bump Stocks
Join us for an in-depth discussion on the recent Supreme Court decision in Garland v. Cargill with expert, Professor Joseph Blocher from Duke Law School, co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.
In this explainer, Professor Blocher breaks down the recent Supreme Court decision, Garland v. Cargill, which overturned the ban on "Bump Stocks" on guns. According to Professor Blocher, this case surprisingly hinges on the definition of "Machine gun" under federal law and how exactly a trigger is struck when using a bump stock.
► www.talksonlaw.com for more legal explainers and interviews with the titans of law.
Key topics covered:
Background and significance of the Garland v. Cargill case
Explanation of what bump stocks are and their functionality
Details of the Supreme Court's decision in Garland v. Cargill and the arguments presented
Distinctions between semi-automatic weapons with a bump stock and automatic weapons
The impact of this ruling on future gun regulations and statutory interpretations
____________________
Chapters:
0:00 - Overview
1:30 - Background of the Garland v. Cargill Case
4:50 - What is a Bump Stock?
8:20 - Supreme Court's Decision Explained
10:15 - Implications for Future Gun Regulations
#SupremeCourt #BumpStocks #GunLaw #GarlandvCargill #LegalAnalysis #DukeLaw #JosephBlocher #TalksOnLaw #FirearmsLaw
Transcript Excerpt:
Hello and welcome to Talks on Law. I'm Joel Cohen. Today we're talking about a recent Supreme Court decision that just came down, overturning the ban on bump stocks. We have a Second Amendment scholar and a Talks on Law favorite with us, Professor Joseph Blocher, who teaches at Duke Law School and is the co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Joseph, welcome back to Talks on Law...
Watch the full interview for a detailed exploration of this significant case and its broader legal context.
In this explainer, Professor Blocher breaks down the recent Supreme Court decision, Garland v. Cargill, which overturned the ban on "Bump Stocks" on guns. According to Professor Blocher, this case surprisingly hinges on the definition of "Machine gun" under federal law and how exactly a trigger is struck when using a bump stock.
► www.talksonlaw.com for more legal explainers and interviews with the titans of law.
Key topics covered:
Background and significance of the Garland v. Cargill case
Explanation of what bump stocks are and their functionality
Details of the Supreme Court's decision in Garland v. Cargill and the arguments presented
Distinctions between semi-automatic weapons with a bump stock and automatic weapons
The impact of this ruling on future gun regulations and statutory interpretations
____________________
Chapters:
0:00 - Overview
1:30 - Background of the Garland v. Cargill Case
4:50 - What is a Bump Stock?
8:20 - Supreme Court's Decision Explained
10:15 - Implications for Future Gun Regulations
#SupremeCourt #BumpStocks #GunLaw #GarlandvCargill #LegalAnalysis #DukeLaw #JosephBlocher #TalksOnLaw #FirearmsLaw
Transcript Excerpt:
Hello and welcome to Talks on Law. I'm Joel Cohen. Today we're talking about a recent Supreme Court decision that just came down, overturning the ban on bump stocks. We have a Second Amendment scholar and a Talks on Law favorite with us, Professor Joseph Blocher, who teaches at Duke Law School and is the co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Joseph, welcome back to Talks on Law...
Watch the full interview for a detailed exploration of this significant case and its broader legal context.
Переглядів: 498
Відео
Originalism & the 2nd Amendment
Переглядів 86Місяць тому
The Second Amendment and our modern right to bear arms are entwined with a legal philosophy called "originalism," according to 2A scholar, Professor Jake Charles. Originalism is like a time capsule for the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that we should understand and interpret its words just as they were intended back when they were written. This approach has a huge impact on how we view the Seco...
United States v. Rahimi Explained
Переглядів 578Місяць тому
Is it constitutional to restrict gun rights for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders?Professor Blocher of Duke Law School explains the Supreme Court's decision in the latest blockbuster Second Amendment case - United States v. Rahimi. Joseph Blocher is a leading Second Amendment Scholar and the co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Watch the full interview for an in...
Gun Manufacturer Legal Immunity + Exceptions to PLCAA
Переглядів 1742 місяці тому
UA-cam Caption: Gun manufacturers in the United States have special civil immunity broadly protecting them from being sued for crimes of those who used their products. We asked a Second Amendment legal scholar to explain how it works and the exceptions to the gun manufacturer's immunity. Join us as we discuss the limits and developing law around suing gunmakers with Professor Jody Madeira from ...
Mental Illness Limits on Gun Rights - 2nd Amendment Analysis
Переглядів 1612 місяці тому
2nd Amendment Analysis 🎙️: Prof Madeira on Mental Illness and Individual Gun Rights The Second Amendment grants a right to keep and bear arms, but when can this right be restricted due to mental illness? Join us for a compelling discussion with Professor Jody Madeira from Indiana Maurer School of Law as we dive into the complex intersection of mental illness and Second Amendment rights. In this...
US v. Rahimi: Does the 2nd Amendment Permit Gun Bans in Cases of Domestic Violence?
Переглядів 7033 місяці тому
In this interview, Professor Jody Madeira answers the question, "Is It Constitutional to Take Awat Guns from Someone Accused of Domestic Violence?" Prof. Madeira shares insights on the existing law, the case about DV and the 2nd Amendment now pending at the Supreme Court, and how the process works on the ground. Professor Madera explains that while federal law (18 USC Section 922 G8) has long p...
Space Nukes and Outer Space Law 🚀
Переглядів 5403 місяці тому
Is a future of satellites armed with nuclear weapons simply science fiction or an impending reality? Dive into a gripping discussion on the complexities and legalities of nuclear weapons and the weaponization of outer space with a leading space law expert, Professor Frans von der Dunk. Von der Dunk and host, Joel Cohen, explore the unsettling possibilities and the international laws governing t...
The Constitutionality of Red Flag Laws
Переглядів 2384 місяці тому
What are "red flag laws" and are they consistent with the Second Amendment? Professor Jody Madeira of Indiana University's Maurer School of Law sheds light on this contentious topic in a recent interview on Talks on Law. Red flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), are civil orders aimed at preventing gun violence by temporarily removing firearms from individuals deemed ...
Data Breach - A Legal Definition?
Переглядів 2135 місяців тому
Ever wonder what counts as a "data breach" in the maze of laws governing our digital lives? Dive into our latest TalksOnLaw interview with cybersecurity guru Michelle Reed who co-heads the cybersecurity practice for the law firm Akin Gump! Michelle breaks down the nitty-gritty of when a security incident becomes a "data breach" for reporting purposes, guiding us through the complex world of cyb...
Law of War: Can Israel Target Hamas Fighters in a Hospital?
Переглядів 817 місяців тому
Can Israel target Hamas fighters inside a Hospital or is it a war crime? Under the laws of war, targeting a hospital is a war crime, however, conducting military operations inside of a hospital is also a war crime. So, within the Israel-Gaza context, when can Israel target fighters hiding in or beneath a hospital? We asked an expert on the laws of war and war crimes to weigh in on this difficul...
Are Gun Laws Racist?
Переглядів 2287 місяців тому
Are American Gun Laws Racist? Professor Darrell Miller of Duke Law School evaluates the history and contemporary landscape of gun laws in the United States in relation to race. Prof Miller, co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, explores the historical underbelly of firearms regulation and sheds light on the nuanced and often complex nature of this critical issue. 0:00 Are gun laws ra...
War Crimes in Israel and Gaza - Understanding the Law
Переглядів 4628 місяців тому
What are War Crimes Within the Context of the Israel Gaza Conflict - Insights from a Legal Expert on the Laws of War In the bloody conflict between Israel and Gaza, the line between legitimate military action and war crimes is often confused. Guided by Professor Michael Newton, an expert in the laws of war, this interview explores the legalities of warfare in Israel and Gaza. When is a bombing ...
Gun Rights v. Free Speech: When Constitutional Amendment Collide
Переглядів 39611 місяців тому
Guns Rights v. Free Speech - An In-Depth Discussion with Prof. Joseph Blocher About This Episode Today, we tackle one of the most intricate topics in constitutional law: the intersection of gun rights and free speech. We're honored to welcome back Professor Joseph Blocher, a law professor at Duke Law School and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Prof. Blocher breaks down the compl...
Which Weapons Are Protected by the Second Amendment? 💥
Переглядів 92011 місяців тому
What weapons are actually protected by the Second Amendment right to bear arms? Are we talking just about firearms, or is it a broader term that encompasses more? To answer this fascinating questions, we talk with Professor Jake Charles from Pepperdine Law School, an authority on constitutional law and the 2nd Amendment. Chapter Timestamps 👇 00:00 Introduction: Setting the stage for a nuanced c...
Obscure Bankruptcy Law to Decide $6B Oxy Settlement. Columbia Law Prof Decodes SCOTUS Case.
Переглядів 22911 місяців тому
Why is a little-known bankruptcy law shaking up a $6 billion opioid settlement? Columbia Law Prof Edward Morrison breaks down this SCOTUS case's potential to transform bankruptcy law, decide the fate of billions of dollars in victims' compensation, and to determine whether the Sackler family will be released from all future liability. Will the Supreme Court give the green light? Prof. Morrison ...
The Bruen Decision - A Game Changer for Gun Rights
Переглядів 16 тис.Рік тому
The Bruen Decision - A Game Changer for Gun Rights
The "Gun Show Loophole" Demystified - Prof. Charles on Gun Background Check Laws
Переглядів 830Рік тому
The "Gun Show Loophole" Demystified - Prof. Charles on Gun Background Check Laws
McDonald v. City of Chicago -- Gun Rights Game Changer 🔥🏛️
Переглядів 2,5 тис.Рік тому
McDonald v. City of Chicago Gun Rights Game Changer 🔥🏛️
Is the Second Amendment Really a Second-Class Right? 💥🔫
Переглядів 614Рік тому
Is the Second Amendment Really a Second-Class Right? 💥🔫
What are Sensitive Places under the 2nd Amendment?
Переглядів 930Рік тому
What are Sensitive Places under the 2nd Amendment?
Understanding the New SEC Marketing Rule
Переглядів 1,2 тис.Рік тому
Understanding the New SEC Marketing Rule
The King of Gun Rights Cases - DC v. Heller
Переглядів 2,6 тис.Рік тому
The King of Gun Rights Cases - DC v. Heller
Does the Shadow Docket Create Precedent?
Переглядів 109Рік тому
Does the Shadow Docket Create Precedent?
Shocking you all allowed illegal immigrants in the USA stock up people killing people out here and it's more of the immigrants doing it. The supreme Court was for the people forget the nonsense protect your families from drug dealers all these gangs coming over here especially your property
Still not clear in today's society everyone so soft any insult is deemed that violence is a rational responce.
The government has always changed their words any time to do anything they wanted to fit what ever wanted do.
Shal not be infringed says it all, the word means no infringed .
At 6:27 the host and Blocher are both completely wrong. Heller does not grant any rights. Neither does the Constitution grant any rights. The right described in Amendment II and affirmed by Heller is, like all rights, pre-existing. It is a natural, inherent, and unalienable fundamental right that is merely enumerated in the Constitution for particular protection. This is Con Law 101 stuff, people.
At 4:00 Blocher is completely wrong again. The court did NOT split 5-4 on the question of whether the right described in Amendment II is an individual right. In fact, on that point the Justices agreed 9-0 that the right is an individual right unconnected with militia service. Even the dissenting Justices conceded this point. Where they differed was the extent to which the government could permissibly burden that right.
At 2:15 Blocher is completely wrong that the collective rights theory prevailed in the court for 200 years. That's just not true. The truth is that until Heller, the question had never been directly addressed by the courts, because it was never, ever seen in US jurisprudence as a "collective right", precisely because there is no such thing as a "collective right". The "collective right" theory was a fabrication by a single judge in the mid 20th-century, which gun control advocates seized upon and then repeated to themselves so many times that they came to believe it was historically accurate. The Heller decision *specifically* addresses this point and refutes it.
Thanks for the video
This has changed since the Rahimi decision where the Supreme Court says you can only be temporarily disarmed for the time you are a danger to yourself or someone else. So whether the felon had a violent or non violent felony permanent disarming someone is unconstitutional so this video is a moot issue.
A Win for the government? The People ARE the Government
Everything this clown says is a fumble of reality
What do you both not get about SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!? And BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE!? Wanna talk domestic abusers!? Look into COPS
This guest is a clown. Would love to have a word with him on his stupidity
I am glad that I found this video thank you for putting it out it is very educational on a lot of this stuff😊
Great conversation guys, extremely important too! This goes back to something that I think far too few people can fully grasp, and that's the human capacity and propensity for self-delusion. In other words, when it comes to belief, (everything from political frameworks, religious faith, belief in a system, belief in institutions, in people, ect), people don't just believe in things, subconsciously they desperately want what they believe in to bet rue - every bit as much as they actually believe it to be true. You not only have to overcome a persons belief in something, you have to overcome the fact that they want to believe what they believe. You can't convince someone who believes in god that he doesn't exist by giving them a text-book that shows that there's no evidence of his existence. And this holds true for things that we're taught to see as being objective fact, like believing our justice system in practice is about attaining justice and that it's not subject to human error. When in reality we have a justice system that in practice is designed to not necessarily find and convict the guilty party, so much as it's about getting convictions/confessions . All the incentives pus police and especially prosecutors, to focus on getting convictions and/or confessions. For a thought experiment say a prosecutor is presented with a case where they have a suspect who they're now prosecuting and have plenty enough evidence to get a conviction, but find contradictory evidence that could mean that the person being prosecuted is innocent while at the same time not eough to prove that they're innocent. The way our system is designed - it would lead them 10 times outa 10 to go ahead and get the conviction. Because the incentives push for wins first and foremost, and right now as it stands - they can get that win. And like the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush. Meaning, that the person may be innocent, but if they stop the prosecution to explore where this contradictory evidence leads to make sure that they are 100% positive that the suspect is guilty, who's to say that they'll ever be able to find another suspect, who has enough evidence against them for the prosecutor to win a case against them? And so there faced with a situation where the person they got may be innocent, but they have a good enough case as it stands now to get a conviction, while maybe never finding another suspect whom the prosecutors will be as confident that they'll be as likely to convict. With the incentive structure, they're gunna go for that conviction. There are very few actually "evil" people out there, in fact even the worst people in the world have convinced themselves that they are the good-guys, or that at least the awful things they do or have done is justified. the problem is we are humans - therefore fallible and incapable of objectivity - and therefore that's the case for anything we create is as well. Everything we believe in, say, interpret, etc - is subject to biased interpretations influenced by pre-existing world-views and life experiences. And we are all, no matter how intelligent we may be, capable of convincing ourselves of all sorts of falsehoods wile not even realizing that this is the case. That prosecutor in the example i brought up, they'd be able to do this because they'd convince themselves, that this contradictory evidence isn't enough - and the person they got now is still guilty and they aren't gunna allow any second thoughts. They want to believe they are serving justice - every bit as much as they actually believe that they are. I don't know if there's a way to account for these flaws, but this is something people need to become more aware of at the least. Sorry for the massive rant, no clue it was this long till now that i finished, lol. Once again - great discussion!
I’m a Felon and never went to jail !
A God given inalienable right under the second amendment of the United States Constitution should not be a privilege by permission, license, or permit from the government whether it is a municipal, county, state, or the federal government. Attorneys, Lawyers, Persecutors, Prosecutors, Justices, and quite frankly the entire judicial system are the problem with lawfare in America ! Do you ask permission each time that you exercise God Given inalienable rights as if were a privilege ? What about saying a prayer or going to assemble at a church or the press printing a newspaper or an article ? So why does that apply the second amendment ?
How amazing is it the with 8.5 billion people on the planet, we discovered by proxy of these individuals that there is a specific amount of hubris required to manifest the audacity to promulgate _rules_ for Galactic issues we haven't faced and cannot currently enforce?
i would love to hear these Pre-NFA laws he is quoting.
Keep it in your trousers and stay out of trouble.
So they use racist laws to take guns away dam and they call Trump hitler
VICTIMLESS DUI 3rd: UNITED STATES MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago was my DUI 3rd Non-Violent/Victimless felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and without a DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979). Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren, returning to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision regain my gun right for family and home protection after 50 prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;...! (Are prohibited from firearm possession) Legally, DUI felons are no longer considered part of "We the People" and should not be required to pay taxes! When Michigan DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the gun "Right" and citizenship should never be a lifetime gun ban! We served our time of punishment ... - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
In Brasil, we named his fenomenal in historical interpretation or autentic interpretation
The right to self defense is a God given right, period!
UNITED STATES MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
UNITED STATES (MICHIGAN) MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
UNITED STATES (MICHIGAN) MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
UNITED STATES MARINE: (From Young-Marine to Man/Husband/Father, to Grandfather.) 50 years ago, was my (3rd) third Non-Violent/Victimless DUI felony offense ... All offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. After serving (6) years as a front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), (Before having a wife, children, and grandchildren) the return to civilian life was difficult... (Honorable Discharge ) Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old United States Marine regain his gun right for family and home protection after 50 defenseless, prohibited years based on nexus with 18USC(g)(1) (g) It shall be unlawful for any person- (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Legally we are no longer part of "We the People"! When DUI offenses have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right/Privilege" should never be "eternally prohibited"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
United States of America v. Duarte in the ninth circuit court of appeals says felons are not prohibited.
Whats the difference from assault to any person to dv? Nothing. So why make different rules
Tell Me ??? Where have our Rights Went ??? A Right can not be Registered Regulated Restricted Revoked Lisenced or Taxed only Privileges can be... What are our Inalienable Rights today ??? Self Defense is a God Given Right not subject to laws of man . All these Rules and Laws are against our bill of rights so why are people being murdered over them ??? When men with Machine Guns come to take your guns... Exactly What Are Your Rights ??? Who are the Real Criminals ???
I have a felony from 1994 and can’t protect my family haven’t been in trouble since it’s bullshit
Does this settlement only cover New York students?
Where'd our Rights Go ??? A Right can not be Registered Regulated Restricted Revoked Lisenced or Taxed only Privileges can be !!! Self-defense is a God Given Inalienable Right not a Privilege !!! Whatever we choose !!! Vote them Out !!!
United States Marine! (50 years ago was my last DUI) VICTIMLESS, NON-VIOLENT alcohol-related traffic offenses without victim or accident shall eternally abrogate 2-A "Rights" by nexus with Federal 18USC922(g)(1). 50 years ago my DUI offenses were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, or DAMAGED PARTY, and, void of mens rea- (Intent to do harm!) After serving (6) years as an honorably discharged United States front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), returning to civilian life alone, was difficult... Can the Bruen decision help get this 67-year-old Marines 2-A right restored after 50 years as a prohibited person for non-violent DUI offenses! When DUI arrests have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right" should never be "eternally abrogated"! If there were a law to disarm taxpayers prior to 1968, wouldn't it still be on the books? - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
CAN THE BRUEN DECISION HELP ME? Written by a United States Marine! (50 years ago was my 3rd DUI) "PLEASE READ" ...! VICTIMLESS, NON-VIOLENT alcohol-related traffic offenses eternally abrogate 2-A "Rights by nexus with 18USC922(g)(1).". My DUI's were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY and, void of mens rea- (Intent to do harm!) After serving (6) years as an honorably discharged United States front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), returning to civilian life was difficult... WITHOUT a victim, incident, accident, or damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right" should never be eternally abrogated! Can the Bruen decision get this 67-year-old Marines 2-A right restored after 50 years as a prohibited person? - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
WHAT ABOUT THE BRUEN DECISION? Written by a United States Marine! (50 years ago was my 3rd DUI) "PLEASE READ" ...! VICTIMLESS alcohol-related traffic offenses eternally abrogate 2-A "Rights by nexus with 18USC922(g)(1).". My DUI's were VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY and, void of mens rea- (Intent to do harm!) After serving (6) years as an honorably discharged United States front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), returning to civilian life was difficult... WITHOUT a victim, incident, accident, or damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right" should never be eternally abrogated! Can the Bruen decision get this 67-year-old Marines 2-A right restored? - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
You, a lawyer, should know that there is NO SUCH THINGas ‘reasonable suspicion. The police MUST HAVE REASONABLE ARTICULABLE suspicion OF A CRIME!
This guy is a tyrant.
Dick Heller is salt
Salt?
Harry the gun dude, or just the gun dude
Heller Gun Dude
3 easy answers 1 A Cop can just say I was scared for my life. 2 Qualify immunity. 3 Lack of Accountability and proper Punishment for Police Officer misconduct.
Right off the bat we have a problem. The gun manufacturers do NOT have immunity from civil liabilities. If their products are defective, they definitely can and have been sued. This idea that they are immune is given in bad faith by bad actors wishing to conflate two different legal theories. One is that arms manufacturing is somehow different and should be held liable for the decisions and actions of others. The other is that a business is responsible for their products and the safe use there of for the operator. Make no mistake, firearms manufacturers are liable for the safe use of their weapons for the user. They are not responsible for how the user decides to use the weapon.
No, this is simply a case of people wanting to place blame on someone for something they don't understand. Where are the demands to sue car manufacturers for making their adverts look like cars are fast, and when people try the things in the commercials they end up in accidents? Why is this same train of thought not also taken to tool manufacturers when people use tools such as hammers for fitting murder? Craftsman makes a very deadly weapon when it is used in such a way.
Why can we not sue the FBI for being the ones responsible for passing someone's background check when purchasing a gun? Shouldn't the burden rest in the entity with the power to approve/deny in these scenarios? How many purchases has the FBI now allowed that has lead to deaths? Why can't they fix their broken system?
when we fix qualified immunity we will begin to abolish the caste system in this country.
Thank you sir for your excellent, to the point, none BS interview.
Does anyone else think that the idea of “meeting an important governmental interest” is antithetical to the purpose of the second amendment? A key reason for the second amendment is to protect the people from a corrupt government. Are we seriously going to allow the government to say it’s not in the government’s best interest to give you the power to defend yourself from us?
Left wing media :see there u go you heard it here she said wife gets out of line its unconstitutional not to give ger a back hand matter of fact she said ts your duty 😳
The Constitution was written to limit government over the people, so the Government making decisions on how to circumvent the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " clause in the Constitution is in itself Unconstitutional
I would question her scholarly advice if she thinks this pertains to 1791 and 1868. Since no one from the founding generation of our “founding fathers” were alive by 1868. So it would be mistake to take an interpretation from nearly 80 years after the bill of rights were passed. And this is not how SCOTUS (at least the current SCOTUS) would handle these questions either. It’s why they use dictionary from the founding era. Not from 1868, 1934, or 2021 to address definitions of words👍