D.C. v. Heller - Landmark Cases - Episode # 7
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 фев 2016
- Until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the Supreme Court had not tackled Second Amendment challenge since 1939. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the court and struck down a ban on handguns. This case continues to be the leading case surrounding our right to possess firearms.
Full Cases can be found at: scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...
I've recently launched a new channel focused on personal and professional growth. If you're interested in learning more about building your PsyCap (H.E.R.O. - Hope, Efficacy, Resilience, & Optimism), head over to my new channel, “TheUnlimitedLab” where I use the same whiteboard style you know and love to share strategies, tips, and insights to live an unlimited life.
Here's the link: / channel
Definitions:
Issue
- Question the court must answer.
Dissent
- An explicit disagreement by one or more judges with the decision of the majority on a case before them.
Holding
- courts ruling
Affirmed
- declare support, uphold
Certiorari
- order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court
Appeal
- apply to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court
Stare Decisis
- policy of the court to follow or adhere to principles set-out by decisions in earlier cases
Enjoin
- a court directs, requires, commands, or admonishes
The law discussed in this video is general in nature and is not legal advice. This video is purely intended for educational purposes. The video is not intended as a substitute for legal advice. You are highly encouraged to seek professional legal advice in your State should you find yourself dealing with the subject matter of this video. The subject matter is not specific to any individual or State law. The video is published for the sole use of education and it is solely based on the opinions and knowledge of the publisher.
Sources:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, (2008)
www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org...
www.supremecourt.gov/qp/07-002...
www.americas1stfreedom.org/art...
www.thefreedictionary.com 
Кино
I was not refused a license to carry a handgun. I was actually granted a certificate in every state in the US.
Breyer... Rhymes with "dryer." Not "layer."
Love all your videos❤️
Breyer, like the ice cream Breyer's. I apologize for mentioning your pronunciation. Thanks for the video.
I wish they had addressed the INJUNCTION against government infringement clause!
Great video thanks!
A complete ban on a class of weapons is unconstitutional ... so why are full-autos banned then? What about open carry? I realize those are kind of outside the scope of this case though...Good video -- I learned a lot!
Thank you for your comment surgeyX. Im glad you were able to take something away from the video. Your questions are extremely thought provoking. Unfortunately, I have not dug into the ban and open-carry issues you mentioned enough to speak intelligently about them. But thank you for raising the questions. You've sparked my interest.
according to my research, automatic guns are not banned as a whole, only those made after a certain date in 1986. that means that machine guns made in 1985 or earlier are legal, albeit heavily restricted.
***** Thanks for helping us out. Good Stuff Brother!
Think LegalEase no problem.
surgeyX the automatic weapon restrictions are definitely unconstitutional
thank god for antonin scalia!
Yup. May he rest in peace.
not "Hamdi" Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
In Miller, the court prefaced it's holding with "Since no evidence has been presented to the court that a shotgun ..." (or verbiage substantially to that effect) because Miller had died by the time the case came before the court and his sorry arsed lawyer didn't even show up to argue the case. The Miller case means nothing but did indicate that if a weapon has military utility (you know like fully automatic machine guns and shoulder-fired anti-tank/aircraft missiles, mortars, etc.; including "Any Thing which may be used for offensive or defensive purposes; usually refers to weapons of military utility."), it's guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
Additionally, the courts are obligated to "preserve" the FULL SCOPE of ALL of our RIGHTS and NOT just the "core right" because that's the PRIMARY reason governments are instituted among men. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly defined "to bear arms" as:
“… to ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Heller v. D.C., 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125,143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted).
Sure sounds like Open or Concealed Carry at the discretion of the individual to me! And, it covers both long guns and handguns, knives, swords, daggers, e.g. "Any Thing ..."
Let's look at some other legal definitions:
INFRINGE: actively break the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of; disregard, ignore, neglect; go beyond, overstep, exceed; infract; act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on, restrict, limit, curb, check; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise, REGULATE WITHOUT LAWFUL POWER, as in, "The statute infringes constitutionally guaranteed rights."
WELL REGULATED: Operating properly; functioning as intended
And the famous slave case, Dredd Scott v. Sandford, clearly indicates where and when we can bear them:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs AND TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT. ....” - Dred Scott v. Sandford (Page 60 U.S. 417) [EMPHASIS MINE]
Furthermore, the government's arguments that they have expanded, non-enumerated powers because they have declared an "emergency for "Public Safety" (or even "National Security") and passed some "color of law" legislation are UNPERSUASIVE and MAKE NO SENSE since the Constitution and Bill of RIGHTS were written by the founders with the expressed purposes of ensuring "Domestic Tranquility" and promoting the "General Welfare". Both terms which INCLUDE the goals of "public safety" and "national security"!
And, finally, we MUST STOP our illegitimate, criminal, foreign government from continuing to use their Commerce Power UNLAWFULLY to contravene other provisions of the Supreme Law, such as Background Checks (which violate over a half dozen rights at a minimum) and other "infringements" imposed by UNLAWFUL "commerce" rules, regulations and other "color of law"! (With our Privately Owned Automobiles and Right to Travel too by the way!)
Actually, I would begin my defense or case with the argument that it's OUTSIDE the lawful Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the court and that the right's enshrinement in the Bill of Rights takes legislative options off the table too (that's actually already standing precedent (aka: stare decisis)) and move for dismissal because prosecutor has brought a complaint for which the court has no lawful jurisdiction and cannot grant relief!
But, I'm not a lawyer and never went to law school - just multitudes of Law School Websites on the web.
fwiw
Brandenburg vs Ohio
Nice overview, especially of the practical history and outcome. I consider Heller the "right wing Roe" - a lot of interpretative gymnastics to find a modern, expansive right not expressed in the archaic amendment constitutional provision being considered. I suspect Heller will be narrowed substantially if not outright overturned in favor of the Miller standard in the next 20 years.
Roe and Heller is quite different. overturning Roe would grant states the power to determine their own laws on abortion, overturning in favor of Miller would change presidence on the 2nd amendment. Keep in mind, the 2nd is part of fundamental law any change in presidence would have sweeping consequences for a large part of the population opening the door for outright banning of private ownership of arms. Roe v Wade is not, it is merely a decision upheld by the courts deeming anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. For there to be similar consequences based on decision (overturning or ruling in favor of) Abortion rights would need to become law through the legislative branch.
@@WildcatsRWinners I think Roe and Heller are a lot more similar than you might think. Roe held that the Fourteenth Amendment provides for a right to privacy that is violated by certain laws that restrict abortion. Heller held that the Second Amendment provides for a right to access firearms for personal use, outside of service in a militia. So the holdings of both decisions are purportedly grounded directly in the Constitution. That is a key similarity. My point is simply that modern conception of the constitutional right to access firearms is based on a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Second Amendment in what was a relatively novel way, and that this is fairly similar to what the Court did when it interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in arriving at the modern conception of the right to privacy and access to abortion in Roe.
@@danp-d2810 I think the hangup for me comes with Roe being grounded in the 14th. It has VERY little standing power (which is why in the dissents today there was very little reference to the constitution and more of a "we think this is good so let's keep this") meanwhile the 2nd is explicit in the rights of the people. If abortion was lined out in the constitution I would agree with you, but seeing as how it is not, it should be kicked down to the states to decide. Too many people don't understand (I'm sure that you do after chatting with you) that overturning Roe is a States rights issues more than an abortion issue.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms" seems pretty clear to me. Guess I would need to attend a 4 year law school to understand that it actually means the people have no right to keep & bear arms.
@@WildcatsRWinners abortion also involves the fourth amendment
Does anyone have the answers to the worksheet activity about these cases? Lol.
Justice Scalia was not my favorite justice. His legal arguments were - mostly - deeply flawed. However, I would agree with this decision.
I totally disagree. Only a few of his arguments were flawed, imo, notably the one that "... doubt should not be cast on long standing abuses and infringements, unlawfully denying the exercise of rights in places or by persons over which the government has absolutely zero lawful power to stipulate as "prohibited" ..." (not direct quote but words substantially to that effect) and such. jmho.
David Bauler name one
Rainbow flag checks out. 👍 lol