The problem with most arguments against gun ownership is that not everyone has a police force readily available! There are still areas in nearly every state where it can take up to 30 minutes for an officer to reach - some places a LOT longer. We aren't talking MT either -- big states like NY, IL, MN, CA , FL, WI .... they all have areas which do NOT have much more than a county sheriff or state patrol.
Not only that, but in 2005 the supreme court ruled that the police do not have any responsibility for failing to protect you. A woman had a restraining order against her estranged husband and he had come to her house and kidnapped her three daughters. She had repeatedly called the police who didn't do anything about it until hours later when he showed up at the police station and shot the three daughters in his van.
This is true actually. Especially in areas that are impoverished. In certain areas of Tampa, it takes an officer at minimum 2 hours to respond. 2 hours. I had a friend who had a roommate that was very abusive towards his girlfriend. Like beating her incessantly. The cops would show up hours after being called, then say "Well, he's not beating you now. So why are we here?" My friend was terrified that he would kill her so he ended up kicking him out. And that's just an abuse case. I don't even want to imagine how many murders have happened because the police are incompetent in certain areas. People need to be able to defend themselves now more than ever. In some areas of some states they won't even respond anymore because they're just done.
It's so two-faced for the government to trust someone with a gun when employed to protect their own interests but not when the same individual wants to protect themselves.
Yeah, exactly! When someone breaks into our home and is an immediate threat to our lives and property, we can just call the police department who will arrive in at least 10 mins to save us! We don’t need to save ourselves, we’ll just wait for the police to come and hope the intruders are having a good day and don’t murder us!
The meaning of the Second Amendment is not simple. The "It's only for militia service" crowd and the "'Shall not be infringed' means no exceptions!" crowd both think it's a simple matter, and they're both wrong about that. The very fact that both those perspectives exist prove that it's not simple. The fact that there's a 1400-page law school textbook about the second amendment and gun rights amzn.to/2N74lk8 and more than twenty history books (like actual history books by historians published by universities) on that one, short little amendment is another strong sign that it's more complex than those two groups think. When you start researching the history of how self-defense, the right to bear arms, and the Second Amendment has been intrepreted, you find that there are scores of completely separate and contradictory intrepretations by the authors and ratifiers of the amendment itself and legal scholars and the courts then and since. I mean, most of them even make a distinction between the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense! And whether it includes a right to hunt, whether or not you must retreat rather than engage for it to count as self-defense, and whether a militia member has that right to bear arms when he's not acting within the scope of official militia conduct further subdivide historical opinion into just so many factions. And if you feel an urge to complain about modern folks undermining the founders' intent on the second amendment in a way that they never would with the rest of the bill of rights, keep in mind that the Founders' first amendment freedom of speech only meant that people couldn't be arrested for illegal speech until after an audience had heard that speech. In fact, it was routine for the first century and a half for Congress to pass laws against criticism of the government every time there was a war, and threw people in jail based on those laws all the way up to the Korean War. It wasn't until the early 1900s that Oliver Wendell Holmes became the first Supreme Court Justice to say in a Supreme Court opinion that we shouldn't punish people for speech that doesn't incite immediate harm, and it wasn't untill the 1950s Civil Rights movement (two decades after Justice Holmes' death) that that intrepretation of the First Amendment actually won a Supreme Court case. Every amendment has a complicated history with the possible exception of the third, and the first and second are probably the most complicated of all.
"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of the state, the right of the people to buy and cook eggs shall not be infringed." Who has the right to eggs in that statement?
This series is definitely one of the most informative/ educative series on TH-cam! I am grateful for your effort that made this possible for the general audience to assimilate! Although I not an expert in online education, I guess you to cooperate with Khan Academy or Crash Course to make more U.S. law series! This is really great. Fantastic!
The Bill Of Rights are meant for the people to protect themselves from the government, so of course the 2nd Amendment is for individual people not the government
This isn't true though, the 14th amendment protects the individual, and extended the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights itself protects the State and its Citizenry from the United States, that is to say, originally you didn't have a right to free speech, you had a right to free speech from the federal government. The 1st amendment says "Congress shall pass no law..." and not "No law shall be passed" The 2nd explicitly uses the term "free State". The Founders are so often used to defend the 2nd and other laws but it wasn't the founders but the 14th that protects you.
@@PCDelorian No, the bill of rights does protect individual rights, but only from the federal government. The 14th amendment says this protection must also extend to the state governments (so the southern states couldn't get away with denying blacks their rights). It was never not individual protection, it was just originally protection from rights infringement only from the federal government and not necessarily from the state.
I agree with the majority. The 1st half of the 2A isn't saying that the right to bear arms is only acceptable in a militia(which had a different meaning in 1791 than it does now and well-regulated meant something like well-organized), it's giving a reason. The modern translation of the 2A would be "Because a well armed citizenry is necessary to keep nations free, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be violated." Also, the Founders in their writings and English common law of the time were pretty clear that this is a right of the people. An amendment protecting guns in the military only is pointless and many Founders were very skeptical of standing armies so they wouldn't have accepted an amendment designed that way anyway. It also explicitly says "the right of the people." I don't have a Patreon but I think a good case to do because it's important but not very well-known is Regents of the University of California v Bakke(affirmative action.)
Literally for 70 years prior to the ruling guns weren't viewed as a right and school shootings were essentially nonexistent. In almost all other developed countries guns are viewed as they were pre-2008, and the US has the highest rate of gun violence by a LOT. Plus the majority of the ruling literally said they didnt base their decisions on looking at the issue broadly for the country. Also, besides gun violence, enabling people to store guns in their home make the chances of accidents and successful suicides a lot more likely than otherwise.
Seems like a good analysis of the amendment itself - showing the first part of the amendment as the reason and the 2nd part as the remedy...it's about time someone get it right.
I'd just change "nations" to "people" and add "absolutely" between "... bear arms..." and "... shall not ...". Otherwise, perfect "interpretation" imo.
@@adan9280 There's no such thing as "gun violence". Guns are inanimate objects and incapable of committing acts on their own. From 1776-1934 there were zero federal "Gun Control" "laws" in the USA because everyone had a decent education instead of indoctrination and knew what the F the 2A really meant. We're about to teach our governments the lesson again, I reckon. I personally think we should ban "medical care" because that's the Number One Killer in the US, Inc. today per the FBI and CDC. And, way more Americans are killed by bathtubs than rifles of any kind (including the black scary ones with the little thingy hanging down and everything).
I mean, if we are being objective, the Supreme Court verdict isn't supposed to be judicial activism. Madison's Federalist No. 46 explains what the militia really is as it is referenced in the Second Amendment.
Again making it political, Federalists and Anti-Federalists were the leading political parties, the Federalists interpretation of the militia was their opinion not fact.
This all doesn’t matter because Even with a little bit context will tell u that there was a right to own a gun in the English bill of rights but they soon changed it because they are “you know tyrants”, that’s probably why we had a war 🤔🤔
@@BloodIsTheInkOfFreedom Madison helped write the constitution. He wrote an essay "Federalist No. 46" to clarify the meaning of the constitution. Many founding fathers came together to write essays explaining the intent behind the constitution. The supreme court has cited these papers in many cases
In the Constitution "The Right Of The People" is referred only two more times and is meant as an Individual Right of a person. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia breaks down all the wording of what the 2nd Amendment was referred to when written in his decision.
It's crazy how some of the biggest Supreme Court cases have been 5-4. In a country of over 330 MILLION people, one person rules over the law of the land.
The 4 in the Heller case have an agenda. It's very sad honestly. They're supposed to be independent, objective arbiters of the law and impose their own beliefs, but that's what those 4 did.
Grant Bradshaw The last time an AWB happened, the crime rate didn't change in any meaningful way compared to the background rate of decline. So all a new one would do is deprive law abiding citizens of a choice. Interestingly in Australia and other gun ban nations, the band didn't effect the crime rate in any meaningful way either. Crime just continued dropping at the long term trend.
Mr. Beat "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."
@Sam Crockett It's a application of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This was explained in the cases explanation. Think "A fast car is needed to go fast, the right of the people to have cars shall not be infringed", the latter isn't invalidated by the former, you can have a slow car.
It's weird that so many people don't understand what a militia is. militia : a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency The militia IS the people. It's not a branch of military or something.
"Scalia is a judicial activist!" "Um DC was the one who wanted it to go to the SCOTUS because the court of appeals sided with Heller. What was Scalia passing them notes or something?"
The claim of "judicial activist" refers to judges who make up new rules that have no basis in laws passed by legislatures or in prior court rulings. They're not accusing Scalia of pushing a court case up to the Supreme Court. They're accusing Scalia of ruling in the case in a way he has often criticized when other judges do it.
@@SphincterOfDoom The accusation is that the standard for judging was made up without a basis in law. A lower court and a higher court can come to the same conclusion based on different standards for judging. I'm not taking sides on whether the accusation is accurate. I do not know. But that they upheld a lower court's ruling does not exclude the possibility of judicial activism by the US Supreme Court.
I was given a felony in Kentucky because I didn’t have any money to pay my child support arrears. I had been a soldier but was out of the service at that time. 9/11 happened and I thought I’d try to rejoin the army. To my surprise I was let back into the army with them knowing I had a felony. I served in Iraq with an issued rifle. When I came back home I thought I could own a firearm but I can’t. I’m so goddamned confused..... I was made into a felon because I had no money and then my country gives me a rifle to kill or be killed in Iraq but I’m not allowed to protect myself or my family or property at home. These laws are truly messed up.
Your nation (your State) has the unalienable right to regulate its militia. It allowed the USA federal government to employ you for a time to defend itself and the other States collectively for a time. During that time the chain of command which was allowed to manage you by your State let you use a firearm. When you returned, your State exercised its right to regulate its militia and in doing so denied you the privilege of owning a firearm due to your previous felony charge.
“A well regulated milita being necessary for the security of a free state,” in all the literature of the time of the framing directly referred to an armed population being a deterrent against tyrannical rule. And to argue such a notion is ridiculous is ignorant of not only the struggles in Vietnam, The Middle East, and further, but that it’s been an effective deterrent as recently as the Bundy Ranch standoff.
Imagine the people who wrote the Constitution, a government who were rebels and whose army was made up of local militias coming from a well-armed populace then turning around and writing a document to take that right away. 10/10 Makes sense
I am for gun control quite strongly but it is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the constitution, and they did their job right. The language in the amendment is clear, like it or not. I would have done the same.
I have to disagree. I am actually of the opposite… I like and think gun ownership is a net positive, however, the amendment clearly states that the gun ownership is for the formation of militias, but since we have a standing army, the point is moot.
@@someanimal3506 the militia's are to fight a tyrannical government. In the event of needing a militia, the military would be part of the tyrannical government. They are not the same
@@someanimal3506 you cannot form a militia without already possessing weapons. It is not membership in the militia that grants the right to keep and bear arms, it is the possession of arms that allows the formation of a militia. The Supreme Court got it right
@@rad_lad_2715 100% correct especially if you look back at history. Before the Declaration was even drafted, militias, particularly in Massachusetts, were already fighting the British. But the Continental Congress originally refused to endorse them and Colonial government support was limited, so how did they get the guns? Simple: they used the guns they already owned.
An AR-15 is in common use and doesn’t fall under the category of firearms subject to being banned. Nor do any arms in common use, specifically semi automatics, whether pistols, and long guns.
It's weird to think, I did a couple videos on this topic and existing laws in 2013. Somehow they are still up-to-date. How has nothing changed since then?
When researching for this video, I actually came across your 2013 video (wow your hair was long back then, you hippie!) Anyway, I thought the same exact thing. Despite all the mass shootings, policy really hasn't changed since then.
I know right, why haven't they done anything about the SSRI's and other psychotic compounds that all these killers seem to be doped up on and are known to cause violent behaviour and suicidal ideations?
I'd love to see you do a video about the 2010 Supreme Court case of McDonald vs Chicago that The Cynical Historian talks about in his video here: th-cam.com/video/_63QPZ3Rbd8/w-d-xo.html
I’m a democrat but I actually agree with the ruling here. I think we need more gun control but that responsible people should be able to carry a gun and that we shouldn’t ban guns entirely.
I find it bizarre that the court has ruled numerous times that free speech can be abridged if the state has a compelling reason for doing so and if it is narrowly tailored-and yet 30,000 people dying every year doesn’t seem to be a good enough reason to abridge gun rights a bit further.
I think you can do swords, I mean cosplayers do it all the time. If you can go into a bank with an AR on your back (you can in many states) I would think you could have a sword.
President During this time: George W. Bush Chief Justice: John Roberts Argued March 18, 2008 Decided June 26, 2008 Case Duration: 100 Days Decision: 5-4 in favor of Heller (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy. Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens for D. C.)
4:10 "The Second Admendment was never meant to protect an individual's right to a gun". Is a crazy statement considering the founding fathers let you own LITERAL CANNONS legally.
The idea of an armed citizenry was important to the founders, who believed that it was necessary to ensure that the government remained accountable to the people.
People forget that originally colonial laws stated that any male 18 or older was part of the 'American Militia' and was required to keep a musket and powder in their place of abode and therefore was meant for, well, any males 18 or older. It is worth noting these laws where scrapped in the late 1700s, and since then cases like this have reaffirmed that the right is for anyone 18 or older (And more recently that is not a felon) to be able to posses a firearm. I would also like to add 'Assault Weapons' are not necessarily more dangerous than any other firearm, just their cosmetics suggest so. I suggest researching the topic more before jumping to conclusions like that.
Why are Ex- Offenders aka FELONS, DISCRIMINTED against ?? I am a ex offender from Arizona. My Civil Rights were restored and Granted back to me in 2014, EXCEPT MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. I HAVE PETITIONED THE COURT 4 TIMES TO RECONSIDER, WHILE SUBMITTING NEW EVIDENCE. WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION FROM THE PROSECUTING/STATE'S ATTORNEY, THE JUDGE CONTINUES TO DENY MY MOTION, RULING IN A BIAS MANNER..That is a VIOLATION of EQUALITY, and EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. no state could “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” VIOLATION of 14th Amendment... The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to ALL people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. = This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. = My 2 Felonies were in 2004 and 2006, thus being Committed to AZ DEPT of CORRECTIONS for 3.5 yrs.. Released OFF PAROLE in MAY2009.. Rights restored in 2014, so why is my RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS BEING INFRINGED UPON??? FELONS=DISCRIMINATION
Assault weapons and Assault style weapons are dangerous because they are designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. They are not toys they are weapons of war.
@@newwaveinfantry8362 why does it matter the Felony ?? Reason I ask is because I don't recall reading anything in the 2nd Amendment about a Convicted Felon exemption clause. It says the people's right to bear arms shall not be in fringed upon. Infringe means violated, taken away, diminished, disrespected, etc.. I never lost my CITIZENSHIP... Still a naturalized born U.S. Citizen my friend. That while National Firearm Act law passed in the 1930's is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and is an Infringement on my Rights... My debt was Paid In Full to the state of AZ officially in 2011.. Period. ... Now my 2nd and 14th Amendment Rights are being Violated and Infringed Upon. Treating a ex convict or felon UNEQUALLY in America today is just straight up wrong. Calling me a Felon, when I've satisfied the court is a disrespect to me, no different than saying I can't bear arms because I'm a wetback, beamer, spik, greaser, or a taco eating whatever u want to call me. The fact is I'm a U.S. Citizen and that's called Discrimination or 2nd Class Citizenship Status and it's a VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT or EQUALITY CLAUSE.. Those gun laws are Unconstitutional and set up to Discriminate against a person like me and others who already paid their debt to society, to make us sit in the back of the bus, the prison bus. If I exercise my 2nd Amendment Right I will be treated UNEQUALLY and have to go back to their modern day Plantation called a prison to be their slave, for them INFRINGING on my Right To Bear.. Don't tell me they have brain worshipped you to believe that Violating My Rights is Acceptable in this Great Nation. I refuse to be treated as their modern day 2nd Class Americans or Negroes.. At least Rosa Parks only had to sit in the back of the city bus, not the damn prison bus, like we ex felons would have to in today's times... That's Real Talk my fellow American brother....
@@artfimbres576 Because violent felons are inherently more violent, dangerous and untrustworthy than non-violent felons or just about anybody else in society. I'm as pro-gun as can be without thinking that we should arm literal terrorists. Yes, 2A doesn't mention offenses, but it does mention that it is the right of the people, provided that they are memebers of the militia or the potential militia. Violent criminals were not part of any militia even at the time of the founding. If you committed a violent felony in those days you'd likely be hanged and that's it. Even from an originalist perspective, there is no justification for giving gun rights to convicted violent offenders of any kind.
It seems blatantly obvious that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would be an individual right, just like all the other rights of the people in the Bill of Rights. The first amendment right of the people to peaceably assemble doesn't protect the right of some sort of official state assembly, the fourth amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons etc. against unreasonable searches and seizures protects individuals, etc.
@@wack8697 I don't see how you can make that argument. Does it say "the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms"? No. It says the right of the people. Forming a well regulated (which includes being well armed) militia requires well armed citizens to start with. If you go from the classical liberal natural rights perspective that serves as the basis of the Constitution, then clearly individuals must have the right to keep and bear arms first in order for the government to have the power to have armed forces at all, and nowhere in the Constitution is that individual right said to have been alienated to the government. Even if the Second Amendment didn't exist at all, that wouldn't imply that we didn't have the right to keep and bear arms (9th Amendment). That it does exist makes the case for people not having the right to keep and bear arms an absurd one.
@@wack8697 The first and fourth amendments also talk about "the people" and not just "people". That's just the sort of language that they used. Rights do not become "obsolete" and the purpose of having an armed militia isn't merely to go to war. Why do you suppose the founding fathers went with a militia system instead of a strong standing army to start with? Why do you suppose the Second Amendment specifically references the security of a _free_ state? Free state is contrasted with a despotic state. When a government becomes despotic, it is the right of the people to throw off and abolish that government, by force if necessary.
@@wack8697 Yes, it is. The notion that "the people" somehow only refers to militia members is utterly baseless. "We the people of the United States", "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", "the right of the people to be secure." Do I _want_ a civil war? No. Do I think a civil war can be justified and is sometimes necessary? Yes. Clearly the founding fathers believed in fighting tyrannical governments with an armed population, as that's literally what they did against England. I don't know what "camp" you think I'm in, but I can tell you that I'm in the camp that believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms, the right of secession, and the right of revolution. Rights could only become obsolete if the nature of humanity or the world itself fundamentally changed, and they haven't. I might not agree with the reasons the Confederacy gave for secession and I certainly don't agree with slavery, but they did have the right to secede.
@@wack8697 People have the right to self-determination, yes. Peaceful secession is of course preferable, but if the country that you are seceding from attacks you then you of course have the right to defend yourself.
That's not at all what that judgment means lol They only said that laws restricting the possession of firearms aren't unconstitutional. Doesn't mean they're politically in favor of those laws being passed.
Their logic also doenst make much sense cuz who exactly defines a well regulated militia? The Government? It also especially doesn't add up when you consider it's historical intent, because if government becomes tyrannical, the only militias that are going to be "well regulated" are the ones defending that government.
That's sad that Americans will believe any of these Unconstitutional Lies our Politicians tells us. WE HAVE RIGHTS PEOPLE... LEARN THEM AND EXERCISE THEM...
First off I am glad I stumbled across this channel. There is some things that I would disagree with you about but your arguments are valid and logical so excellent job! With that I would like to ask was the castle doctrine considered in this case and is there even such a thing as a castle doctrine? Once again I look forward to seeing more content
@The RightStuff criminals loose their rights when they break the law. With mentally ill people if they hadn't commited any crimes and haven't done anything bad then yes they have a right to own guns.
People like to argue that since guns have advanced so much since the second amendment was written that it's not applicable and that the founding father's would've reconsidered if it were written today. I would also argue that means of communication has advanced so much since the first amendment was written, so maybe we should reconsider that free speech should be limited to only certain means of communication.
What you typed made no sense. During the founding of the country the only gun available was the musket which took a minute to reload. It does not compare to the firearms of today where a teenager with a 9th grade education is to keep a well funded police force at bay and murder several people in an instance.
I'm still waiting on a video about no child left behind. Or maybe one on school funding as my school/district is recieving major cuts in the coming year.
Well, hammers are used to build houses, and knives are used to cook food, and cars are used to transport cargo and people. Firearms are used to end life; that's it. That's the sole reason they exist. That's why they're "unusual" as you say.
Hilarious to accuse Scalia of deciding Heller based on his opinion. Read his opinion of the court. Absolutely absurd. It’s an incredibly well written and cited decision.
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv everyone on the left thinks the Stevens dissent is some kind of masterpiece of legal writing. It’s not. Want to see a masterpiece dissent? Read Scalia’s LONE dissent in Morrison v. Olson. It was a case about executive privilege/separation of powers and people are still in awe over its prescience. He was right. SCOTUS should overturn that case too.
You showed AR-15 ass guns that were "dangerous and could be banned" when they actually said guns IN COMMON USE we're protected. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, therefore in common use and therefore protected.
Not majority opinion but dissent was judicial activism. "Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clear-cut statement. Stating random accusations against majority opinion without examining factuality is dishonest representation of the case.
Just stumbled upon this video! US v Miller ruled the 2nd amendment protects military type weapon associated with militia use! US v Heller ruled the 2nd amendment protect an individual right separate from militia use! Heller also added that gun in common use were also protected, but dangerous and unusual firearms could be regulated? Future SC needs to define what guns are in common use, and what are considered dangerous & unusual. If the National Firearms Act of 1934 had not been enacted, would these class of firearms be in common use. There are over 500,000 registered machine guns in the NFA registry, would this be considered common use? I think the text of the 2nd amendment is all we need to go on! THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
At the founding of the nation, private gunboats were allowed even though some were even better than those of the navy. The people should be able to arm themselves as well as the military at any moment.
I'm an absolutist on the 2nd amendment. So I definitely agree with the decision. I think it should be legal for citizens to own automatic rifles and the 1986 gun ban is disgustingly unconstitutional.
Exactly where does it say which guns you have a right to bear? As long as you can still buy a gun of some kind (assuming you pass a background check), all gun restrictions are perfectly constitutional, except for maybe conceal and carry laws.
I personally think the 2nd amendment is a crazy amendment, but I would interpret the meaning the same way, that the 5 majority judges did. On the point of judicial activism, I feel that the American system of choosing surpreme court judges encourages it to such an extend, that nobody should be surprised that it happens.
The Continental Army was disbanded after the Treaty of Paris. We didn't have a permanent standing army. So, the government relied on voluntary militia that were mostly self-equipped. That's what the Second Amendment describes. These militia were called up, for example, to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion.
Even if it weren't for the Second Amendment, I think you could still argue that the right to own a weapon falls under a general right to property, that the government has to have a compelling state interest in regulating the transfer, possession, or use of property, and that said regulations have to be the minimum to achieve said compelling state interest.
Where are you finding this general right to property? I can’t find it anywhere, unless you’re referring to the Due Process Clause, which protects your property.. until due process.
Because judging the law as it reads at face value is biased, but reinterpreting it in modern context to fit into politically left agendas is "the correct" judgement to make.
@@wack8697 It isn't unusual for Supreme Court justices to consider not just the literal text of the law, but also consider the intentions of the lawmakers with respect to the time period, the specific circumstances and issues that gave rise to such legislation being written, and any literature written by congressmen at the time to better understand the mindset of the individuals that passed such legislation. You may already know this, but the 3rd amendment of the constitution is given diminutive nicknames like "the forgotten amendment" and "the worthless amendment" due to its need being lost. It was written in response to the trend of British soldiers forcing themselves upon the colonists during the Revolutionary War to provide housing and meals to them. Obviously, there aren't any soldiers today knocking on people's doors and demanding food or shelter, but we still have that amendment right to be protected by such activity from our military, and the framework that would be used in court when judging this amendment would get traced all the way back to when the US constitution was being drafted and even examining the historical events of the Revolutionary War. There's a reason why the second amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't say the rights of the National Guard or law enforcement to bear arms shall not be infringed. It says "of the people" when talking about this "well-regulated militia" meant to preserve the security of a free state. If law abiding civilians are the ones that own such firearms and use them sparingly, what's there to fear? If you issue hard crackdowns on firearms with gun control measures, you're only punishing the good law-abiding civilians with firearms. Besides, there are WAY more ways to harm numerous people without using a firearm. Even terrorist groups like ISIS instructed their followers in the US to obtain knives and large vehicles when planning an attack, as they aren't regulated as strictly and are widely/readily available compared to firearms.
The way I was told it by my American Government course prof, (a retired 2 star army general, so take that as you will) the original explicit purpose of the second amendment was the thought that citizens should be able to revolt rather easily against any tyrannical government that may happen to take power. I was also told that a large part of this thinking was affected by the war for independence from Britain that had happened recently at the time. That being said, if that was their intent then seemingly none of the judges agreed with this view, as any ban of any kind of weapon, including fully automatic and assault weapons would greatly reduce the ability for citizenry to combat a military equipped with these things.
If the constitution says "The people of these United States have the right to..." is it granting said right to the US as a governmental entity, but not to the individuals that live in it? It would be a big stretch to say that. That's analogous to the argument that it's the militias that have the right to bear arms, but not the people.
3:52 that makes no god damn sense. Why the hell would a government have to give themselves the right to own firearms, and if that was the case why would they even include "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" 3:55 they weren't reading it as a "whole", they were just taking one section of the entire amendment and using it to morph it into something is was never meant to be and would be absolutely pointless. The dissent were the closest to having done "judicial activism" compared to the majority.
Mr. Beat A lot of important cases, not a lot of time. And that's not counting any major cases that will be decided this year like Carpenter v US(how the 4th Amendment applies to smartphone tech)
I basically agree with the Supreme Court here, and I'm shocked it took so long for the 2nd Amendment to be challenged like this. However, I personally have no interest in ever owning a gun, and most people who want one solely for protection are actually more likely to shoot someone they shouldn't rather than a real intruder. However, did the semis and automatics remained banned? I hope so, since there's no reason any private citizen should ever need one of those over a normal handgun for protection.
"are actually more likely to shoot someone they shouldn't rather than a real intruder" That's just simply not true. But even if it was true, is that really a reason why you shouldn't have the right to protect yourself with a firearm? It's great that you live in a place and time you even have the luxury of having this attitude towards firearms ownership, but many people live in the "real world" and are not so lucky. Imagine the ordinary citizen who has (had) this attitude towards firearms who lives in Ukraine, and how they are feeling about it now. The real world is a dangerous and terrifying place, unfortunately many people need to learn that the hard way to have their outlook on firearms and self protection changed.
@@Kanglar It is 100% true. The more guns there are, the more likely a firing incident will occur. A supposedly good citizen can turn bad at a moment's notice. Nobody needs more than a M1911 unless you are in literal fucking warfare, like in Ukraine.
I wonder if any of the 6 people that brought the case ever actually used a hand gun for self defense afterwards. I’d like to know if the “dangerous drug dealers” were more than a story to get the case heard.
“Where the people fear the government there is tyranny. Where the government fears the people there is liberty” I’m a leftist and I completely agree that it’s an individual’s right to own, possess and carry a firearm. I would prefer it to be an open carry and not concealed. But that’s just me and my opinion. And lastly remember kids if you go far enough left you get your guns back
As Justice Oliver Wendell says “No rights are unlimited”. If this were the case then we wouldn’t see limitations on the first amendment with freedom of the press, religion and petition.
There are limitations on all of those things, though, thankfully, small. You can't lie under oath or signiture, be sexually exposed in public, sexually lure in minors with words, openly incite violence, share classified or call for insurrection. None of these are protected by the first amendment and every single one of those has happened and ended up at the SC level. A more realistic rebuttal to the claim that "the second amendment is not absolute like the rest of the constitution" is that 2A has been more restricted than any other amendment and there is, from an originalist perspective, no precedent for banning certain arms until 1934, only banning certain people from owning them, so it is in all likelyhood absolute when it comes to what can be owned.
The law did allow people to keep rifles and shotguns, but they have to be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" which makes them useless during home invasion (unless removing the lock is very quick). I always thought this case was as much or more 9th Amendment as 2nd, as self-defense and defense of one's home is surely one of those rights protected by the 9th.
I agree with the court. The first clause of the 2A is a statement, its not a declaration or command as the second clause is. Since "being necessary to the security of a free State" is an appositive, you can remove that from the sentence and it should still make sense. However, what we're left with is "A well regulated Militia the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" This makes no grammatical sense. Therefore "a well regulated Militia" must also be an apositive. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that a well regulated militia is nor required for the people ti keep and bear arms
The biggest problem that I have with the constitution is that it was written hundreds of years ago. Technology has greatly advanced, times are different, yet were still basing all our laws on a bunch of amendments written in a time when firearms were little more than sticks that shoot out really fast rocks. Think about it, back then muskets and pistols were slow to reload; it took 30 seconds in between shots. They were really useful for hunting and self defence because ideally you'll only need to fire one shot to scare off your intruder or to protect yourself. Now, you can unload 30 bullets in a matter of seconds, guns are easily available and easy to use too. All you have to do is pull the trigger and someone's dead. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but it's just ridiculous that people are fighting for absolutely no restrictions
i believe there should be restrictions. not many, but to a reasonable degree. However, your argument holds no water by the fact of how you typed this. you typed this on a computer, using words that can be sent hundreds of miles in seconds. Back then, writing was done on a large slow printing press. it could take months for people to learn of news from across the country. technology has advanced, yet the 1A still applies. At the time, people were allowed to own cannons and warships. in fact, most of the federal government's cannons in the early part of the country was done so with a cannon
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court! Check it out here: amzn.to/3p8nV64 or visit www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html.
The problem with most arguments against gun ownership is that not everyone has a police force readily available! There are still areas in nearly every state where it can take up to 30 minutes for an officer to reach - some places a LOT longer. We aren't talking MT either -- big states like NY, IL, MN, CA , FL, WI .... they all have areas which do NOT have much more than a county sheriff or state patrol.
Very good point
Not only that, but in 2005 the supreme court ruled that the police do not have any responsibility for failing to protect you. A woman had a restraining order against her estranged husband and he had come to her house and kidnapped her three daughters. She had repeatedly called the police who didn't do anything about it until hours later when he showed up at the police station and shot the three daughters in his van.
Where I live in Pennsylvania if you call the police it will take them an hour or longer to show up.
This is true actually. Especially in areas that are impoverished. In certain areas of Tampa, it takes an officer at minimum 2 hours to respond. 2 hours. I had a friend who had a roommate that was very abusive towards his girlfriend. Like beating her incessantly. The cops would show up hours after being called, then say "Well, he's not beating you now. So why are we here?" My friend was terrified that he would kill her so he ended up kicking him out. And that's just an abuse case. I don't even want to imagine how many murders have happened because the police are incompetent in certain areas. People need to be able to defend themselves now more than ever. In some areas of some states they won't even respond anymore because they're just done.
@@adamdean5881 I called once and they never came
It's so two-faced for the government to trust someone with a gun when employed to protect their own interests but not when the same individual wants to protect themselves.
Why do you need a gun when you have a police department? Well, why do people need portable fire extinguishers when you have a fire department? 🤯
Lol
Or why would you need a first aid kit if you got hospitals?
Yeah, exactly! When someone breaks into our home and is an immediate threat to our lives and property, we can just call the police department who will arrive in at least 10 mins to save us! We don’t need to save ourselves, we’ll just wait for the police to come and hope the intruders are having a good day and don’t murder us!
MORE RELEVANT THAN EVER NOW.THANKS FOR UPLOADING
Well thanks for watching :D
The right of the people to keep and bear arms. What's so hard about that?
The mixing up with the militia really confuses people
Shall not be infringed. Period.
The meaning of the Second Amendment is not simple. The "It's only for militia service" crowd and the "'Shall not be infringed' means no exceptions!" crowd both think it's a simple matter, and they're both wrong about that. The very fact that both those perspectives exist prove that it's not simple. The fact that there's a 1400-page law school textbook about the second amendment and gun rights amzn.to/2N74lk8 and more than twenty history books (like actual history books by historians published by universities) on that one, short little amendment is another strong sign that it's more complex than those two groups think.
When you start researching the history of how self-defense, the right to bear arms, and the Second Amendment has been intrepreted, you find that there are scores of completely separate and contradictory intrepretations by the authors and ratifiers of the amendment itself and legal scholars and the courts then and since. I mean, most of them even make a distinction between the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense! And whether it includes a right to hunt, whether or not you must retreat rather than engage for it to count as self-defense, and whether a militia member has that right to bear arms when he's not acting within the scope of official militia conduct further subdivide historical opinion into just so many factions.
And if you feel an urge to complain about modern folks undermining the founders' intent on the second amendment in a way that they never would with the rest of the bill of rights, keep in mind that the Founders' first amendment freedom of speech only meant that people couldn't be arrested for illegal speech until after an audience had heard that speech. In fact, it was routine for the first century and a half for Congress to pass laws against criticism of the government every time there was a war, and threw people in jail based on those laws all the way up to the Korean War. It wasn't until the early 1900s that Oliver Wendell Holmes became the first Supreme Court Justice to say in a Supreme Court opinion that we shouldn't punish people for speech that doesn't incite immediate harm, and it wasn't untill the 1950s Civil Rights movement (two decades after Justice Holmes' death) that that intrepretation of the First Amendment actually won a Supreme Court case.
Every amendment has a complicated history with the possible exception of the third, and the first and second are probably the most complicated of all.
Nukes for everyone!
"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of the state, the right of the people to buy and cook eggs shall not be infringed."
Who has the right to eggs in that statement?
This series is definitely one of the most informative/ educative series on TH-cam! I am grateful for your effort that made this possible for the general audience to assimilate! Although I not an expert in online education, I guess you to cooperate with Khan Academy or Crash Course to make more U.S. law series! This is really great. Fantastic!
Thank you so much! If Khan or Crash Course would like to work with me, I would gladly accept their offer.
The Bill Of Rights are meant for the people to protect
themselves from the government, so of course the 2nd Amendment
is for individual people not the government
This isn't true though, the 14th amendment protects the individual, and extended the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights itself protects the State and its Citizenry from the United States, that is to say, originally you didn't have a right to free speech, you had a right to free speech from the federal government. The 1st amendment says "Congress shall pass no law..." and not "No law shall be passed" The 2nd explicitly uses the term "free State". The Founders are so often used to defend the 2nd and other laws but it wasn't the founders but the 14th that protects you.
@@PCDelorian No, the bill of rights does protect individual rights, but only from the federal government. The 14th amendment says this protection must also extend to the state governments (so the southern states couldn't get away with denying blacks their rights). It was never not individual protection, it was just originally protection from rights infringement only from the federal government and not necessarily from the state.
@@Kanglar The Civil War established that the individual states cannot pass laws which supersede established federal law.
I agree with the majority. The 1st half of the 2A isn't saying that the right to bear arms is only acceptable in a militia(which had a different meaning in 1791 than it does now and well-regulated meant something like well-organized), it's giving a reason. The modern translation of the 2A would be "Because a well armed citizenry is necessary to keep nations free, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be violated." Also, the Founders in their writings and English common law of the time were pretty clear that this is a right of the people. An amendment protecting guns in the military only is pointless and many Founders were very skeptical of standing armies so they wouldn't have accepted an amendment designed that way anyway. It also explicitly says "the right of the people."
I don't have a Patreon but I think a good case to do because it's important but not very well-known is Regents of the University of California v Bakke(affirmative action.)
Literally for 70 years prior to the ruling guns weren't viewed as a right and school shootings were essentially nonexistent. In almost all other developed countries guns are viewed as they were pre-2008, and the US has the highest rate of gun violence by a LOT. Plus the majority of the ruling literally said they didnt base their decisions on looking at the issue broadly for the country.
Also, besides gun violence, enabling people to store guns in their home make the chances of accidents and successful suicides a lot more likely than otherwise.
Seems like a good analysis of the amendment itself - showing the first part of the amendment as the reason and the 2nd part as the remedy...it's about time someone get it right.
Well said.
I'd just change "nations" to "people" and add "absolutely" between "... bear arms..." and "... shall not ...". Otherwise, perfect "interpretation" imo.
@@adan9280 There's no such thing as "gun violence". Guns are inanimate objects and incapable of committing acts on their own. From 1776-1934 there were zero federal "Gun Control" "laws" in the USA because everyone had a decent education instead of indoctrination and knew what the F the 2A really meant. We're about to teach our governments the lesson again, I reckon. I personally think we should ban "medical care" because that's the Number One Killer in the US, Inc. today per the FBI and CDC. And, way more Americans are killed by bathtubs than rifles of any kind (including the black scary ones with the little thingy hanging down and everything).
I mean, if we are being objective, the Supreme Court verdict isn't supposed to be judicial activism. Madison's Federalist No. 46 explains what the militia really is as it is referenced in the Second Amendment.
Again making it political, Federalists and Anti-Federalists were the leading political parties, the Federalists interpretation of the militia was their opinion not fact.
This all doesn’t matter because Even with a little bit context will tell u that there was a right to own a gun in the English bill of rights but they soon changed it because they are “you know tyrants”, that’s probably why we had a war 🤔🤔
@@BloodIsTheInkOfFreedom Madison helped write the constitution. He wrote an essay "Federalist No. 46" to clarify the meaning of the constitution. Many founding fathers came together to write essays explaining the intent behind the constitution. The supreme court has cited these papers in many cases
"What the militia really is" isn't the relevant question.
In the Constitution "The Right Of The People" is referred only two more times and is meant as an Individual Right of a person. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia breaks down all the wording of what the 2nd Amendment was referred to when written in his decision.
Lol briefs, can't wait for the boxers
Well, there was the Boxer Rebellion.
Ha, now you have to cover that too. Let’s all go to China.
Thank you for these videos, my students love them! 💯💯🔥
It's crazy how some of the biggest Supreme Court cases have been 5-4. In a country of over 330 MILLION people, one person rules over the law of the land.
Good thing is this decision has been strengthened with the 6-3 Bruen decision
The 4 in the Heller case have an agenda. It's very sad honestly. They're supposed to be independent, objective arbiters of the law and impose their own beliefs, but that's what those 4 did.
This Supreme Court decision was a big freaking deal. What do you think about it? Should the United States change its gun laws? If so, how?
Mr. Beat I think they made the right decision.
This will be a good comments section
Grant Bradshaw
The last time an AWB happened, the crime rate didn't change in any meaningful way compared to the background rate of decline. So all a new one would do is deprive law abiding citizens of a choice.
Interestingly in Australia and other gun ban nations, the band didn't effect the crime rate in any meaningful way either. Crime just continued dropping at the long term trend.
Right choice
The dissenting opinion is completely ignorant of historical understanding of the writing. People registered Cannons back then!
It’s the right of “The people” not the right of the “The Militia” to bear arms
I wish they would have wrote "people." That would solve a lot of confusion later on.
Mr. Beat "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."
Militia = People (in this case)
@Sam Crockett It's a application of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This was explained in the cases explanation. Think "A fast car is needed to go fast, the right of the people to have cars shall not be infringed", the latter isn't invalidated by the former, you can have a slow car.
It's weird that so many people don't understand what a militia is.
militia : a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency
The militia IS the people. It's not a branch of military or something.
"Scalia is a judicial activist!"
"Um DC was the one who wanted it to go to the SCOTUS because the court of appeals sided with Heller. What was Scalia passing them notes or something?"
The claim of "judicial activist" refers to judges who make up new rules that have no basis in laws passed by legislatures or in prior court rulings.
They're not accusing Scalia of pushing a court case up to the Supreme Court. They're accusing Scalia of ruling in the case in a way he has often criticized when other judges do it.
@@BradyPostma Except the lower court originally ruled in favor of Heller.
@@SphincterOfDoom The accusation is that the standard for judging was made up without a basis in law.
A lower court and a higher court can come to the same conclusion based on different standards for judging.
I'm not taking sides on whether the accusation is accurate. I do not know. But that they upheld a lower court's ruling does not exclude the possibility of judicial activism by the US Supreme Court.
SCOTUS chooses the cases it hears, you know.
I was given a felony in Kentucky because I didn’t have any money to pay my child support arrears. I had been a soldier but was out of the service at that time. 9/11 happened and I thought I’d try to rejoin the army. To my surprise I was let back into the army with them knowing I had a felony. I served in Iraq with an issued rifle. When I came back home I thought I could own a firearm but I can’t. I’m so goddamned confused..... I was made into a felon because I had no money and then my country gives me a rifle to kill or be killed in Iraq but I’m not allowed to protect myself or my family or property at home. These laws are truly messed up.
Why couldn't you protect yourself?
@@denverlilly3669could not privately own a firearm.
@@denverlilly3669 because a felon legally cannot own a firearm.
Your nation (your State) has the unalienable right to regulate its militia. It allowed the USA federal government to employ you for a time to defend itself and the other States collectively for a time. During that time the chain of command which was allowed to manage you by your State let you use a firearm. When you returned, your State exercised its right to regulate its militia and in doing so denied you the privilege of owning a firearm due to your previous felony charge.
@@gogeodewhat is messed up is that not being able to pay child support is a felony
“A well regulated milita being necessary for the security of a free state,” in all the literature of the time of the framing directly referred to an armed population being a deterrent against tyrannical rule. And to argue such a notion is ridiculous is ignorant of not only the struggles in Vietnam, The Middle East, and further, but that it’s been an effective deterrent as recently as the Bundy Ranch standoff.
People always seem to forget the deterrent factor. I'm glad you brought that up.
@@iammrbeat I would like to point out that it could mean a citizen militia.
@Damian interpreting the bill of rights differently = Marxism?
@Damian you don’t know what subjective means
@Damian I never even said anything about the case, I’ve been disputing incorrect use of language.
Imagine the people who wrote the Constitution, a government who were rebels and whose army was made up of local militias coming from a well-armed populace then turning around and writing a document to take that right away.
10/10 Makes sense
Ya forget about the French that supplied weapons, ammo, uniforms, and troops...everyone knows poor farmers had stockpiles of weaponry
@@pugness did the french supply the shot heard round the world? No, they fully supported us much later.
This is how the constitution should be interpreted. What was meant by the writers, not what the words are read as 250 years later.
I am for gun control quite strongly but it is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the constitution, and they did their job right. The language in the amendment is clear, like it or not. I would have done the same.
I have to disagree. I am actually of the opposite… I like and think gun ownership is a net positive, however, the amendment clearly states that the gun ownership is for the formation of militias, but since we have a standing army, the point is moot.
@@someanimal3506 the militia's are to fight a tyrannical government. In the event of needing a militia, the military would be part of the tyrannical government. They are not the same
@@someanimal3506 you cannot form a militia without already possessing weapons. It is not membership in the militia that grants the right to keep and bear arms, it is the possession of arms that allows the formation of a militia. The Supreme Court got it right
@@rad_lad_2715 100% correct especially if you look back at history.
Before the Declaration was even drafted, militias, particularly in Massachusetts, were already fighting the British. But the Continental Congress originally refused to endorse them and Colonial government support was limited, so how did they get the guns? Simple: they used the guns they already owned.
@@someanimal3506 the 2nd amendment means citizens can form their own military
An AR-15 is in common use and doesn’t fall under the category of firearms subject to being banned. Nor do any arms in common use, specifically semi automatics, whether pistols, and long guns.
It's weird to think, I did a couple videos on this topic and existing laws in 2013. Somehow they are still up-to-date. How has nothing changed since then?
When researching for this video, I actually came across your 2013 video (wow your hair was long back then, you hippie!) Anyway, I thought the same exact thing. Despite all the mass shootings, policy really hasn't changed since then.
If anything, the laws have gotten looser...
I know right, why haven't they done anything about the SSRI's and other psychotic compounds that all these killers seem to be doped up on and are known to cause violent behaviour and suicidal ideations?
I'd love to see you do a video about the 2010 Supreme Court case of McDonald vs Chicago that The Cynical Historian talks about in his video here: th-cam.com/video/_63QPZ3Rbd8/w-d-xo.html
don't think anti-depressants are the culprit here. They're legal in places guns are more heavily controlled and there are less shootings.
Nice use of comic sans
Thank you. It's nice to know there are some folks out there who do not hate comic sans. I think it's still quite underrated. :)
Mr. Beat Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
I’m a democrat but I actually agree with the ruling here. I think we need more gun control but that responsible people should be able to carry a gun and that we shouldn’t ban guns entirely.
That's a good point, but as a constitutional originalist I have to disagree
@@supereero9 Same, I favor less or no gun control
Every gun law is an infringements
@@richlovesfnaf4736
That's not a constitutional originalist position
@@supereero9 the second amendment is a right. so I do not know why there has to be restrictions on that.
With the decision in the NYSRPA v. Bruen, it would cool to see a video on it as well
I find it bizarre that the court has ruled numerous times that free speech can be abridged if the state has a compelling reason for doing so and if it is narrowly tailored-and yet 30,000 people dying every year doesn’t seem to be a good enough reason to abridge gun rights a bit further.
Yesssss been waiting for this one since discovering this channel
I felt the time was right!
i just want to open carry swords and rocket launchers :(
That wouldn't make anybody nervous...
True, I mean if that happened, the next crusades would be imminent.
I think you can do swords, I mean cosplayers do it all the time. If you can go into a bank with an AR on your back (you can in many states) I would think you could have a sword.
Mr. Beat How do you NOT want Bombardier Musketeers?? Just listen to that name. Just rolls right off the tongue.
Texas lets you carry swords
President During this time: George W. Bush
Chief Justice: John Roberts
Argued March 18, 2008
Decided June 26, 2008
Case Duration: 100 Days
Decision: 5-4 in favor of Heller (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy. Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens for D. C.)
I believe responsible Americans, law abiding, shouldn't be denied the right to protect themselves or their loved ones, should it become necessary.
But people who are clearly not in the right frame of mind should be prohibited from owning firearms, would you not agree?
@@joshuacoleman8000 I do.
@@tonyromano4341 Great! I wish pro-gun people would understand that not everyone deserves a firearm!
@@joshuacoleman8000they do
Good timing !
Originally I had planned to get to this one during the summer, but bumped it up due to recent developments :)
4:10 "The Second Admendment was never meant to protect an individual's right to a gun". Is a crazy statement considering the founding fathers let you own LITERAL CANNONS legally.
The idea of an armed citizenry was important to the founders, who believed that it was necessary to ensure that the government remained accountable to the people.
Just as the founding fathers intended
NYSRPA vs Bruen: this right now extends outside of your home.
People forget that originally colonial laws stated that any male 18 or older was part of the 'American Militia' and was required to keep a musket and powder in their place of abode and therefore was meant for, well, any males 18 or older. It is worth noting these laws where scrapped in the late 1700s, and since then cases like this have reaffirmed that the right is for anyone 18 or older (And more recently that is not a felon) to be able to posses a firearm. I would also like to add 'Assault Weapons' are not necessarily more dangerous than any other firearm, just their cosmetics suggest so. I suggest researching the topic more before jumping to conclusions like that.
Why are Ex- Offenders aka FELONS, DISCRIMINTED against ?? I am a ex offender from Arizona. My Civil Rights were restored and Granted back to me in 2014, EXCEPT MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. I HAVE PETITIONED THE COURT 4 TIMES TO RECONSIDER, WHILE SUBMITTING NEW EVIDENCE. WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION FROM THE PROSECUTING/STATE'S ATTORNEY, THE JUDGE CONTINUES TO DENY MY MOTION, RULING IN A BIAS MANNER..That is a VIOLATION of EQUALITY, and EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. no state could “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” VIOLATION of 14th Amendment... The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to ALL people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. = This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. = My 2 Felonies were in 2004 and 2006, thus being Committed to AZ DEPT of CORRECTIONS for 3.5 yrs.. Released OFF PAROLE in MAY2009.. Rights restored in 2014, so why is my RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS BEING INFRINGED UPON??? FELONS=DISCRIMINATION
Assault weapons and Assault style weapons are dangerous because they are designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. They are not toys they are weapons of war.
@@artfimbres576 Violent or non-violent.
@@newwaveinfantry8362 why does it matter the Felony ?? Reason I ask is because I don't recall reading anything in the 2nd Amendment about a Convicted Felon exemption clause. It says the people's right to bear arms shall not be in fringed upon. Infringe means violated, taken away, diminished, disrespected, etc.. I never lost my CITIZENSHIP... Still a naturalized born U.S. Citizen my friend. That while National Firearm Act law passed in the 1930's is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and is an Infringement on my Rights... My debt was Paid In Full to the state of AZ officially in 2011.. Period. ... Now my 2nd and 14th Amendment Rights are being Violated and Infringed Upon. Treating a ex convict or felon UNEQUALLY in America today is just straight up wrong. Calling me a Felon, when I've satisfied the court is a disrespect to me, no different than saying I can't bear arms because I'm a wetback, beamer, spik, greaser, or a taco eating whatever u want to call me. The fact is I'm a U.S. Citizen and that's called Discrimination or 2nd Class Citizenship Status and it's a VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT or EQUALITY CLAUSE.. Those gun laws are Unconstitutional and set up to Discriminate against a person like me and others who already paid their debt to society, to make us sit in the back of the bus, the prison bus. If I exercise my 2nd Amendment Right I will be treated UNEQUALLY and have to go back to their modern day Plantation called a prison to be their slave, for them INFRINGING on my Right To Bear.. Don't tell me they have brain worshipped you to believe that Violating My Rights is Acceptable in this Great Nation. I refuse to be treated as their modern day 2nd Class Americans or Negroes.. At least Rosa Parks only had to sit in the back of the city bus, not the damn prison bus, like we ex felons would have to in today's times... That's Real Talk my fellow American brother....
@@artfimbres576 Because violent felons are inherently more violent, dangerous and untrustworthy than non-violent felons or just about anybody else in society. I'm as pro-gun as can be without thinking that we should arm literal terrorists. Yes, 2A doesn't mention offenses, but it does mention that it is the right of the people, provided that they are memebers of the militia or the potential militia. Violent criminals were not part of any militia even at the time of the founding. If you committed a violent felony in those days you'd likely be hanged and that's it. Even from an originalist perspective, there is no justification for giving gun rights to convicted violent offenders of any kind.
I've got a good suggestion for next time: Entertainment Association v. Brown in 2013, it gave video games 1st Amendment rights.
It seems blatantly obvious that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would be an individual right, just like all the other rights of the people in the Bill of Rights. The first amendment right of the people to peaceably assemble doesn't protect the right of some sort of official state assembly, the fourth amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons etc. against unreasonable searches and seizures protects individuals, etc.
Not like the 4th actually means anything. Police and government spyware tread all over it.
@@wack8697 I don't see how you can make that argument. Does it say "the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms"? No. It says the right of the people. Forming a well regulated (which includes being well armed) militia requires well armed citizens to start with. If you go from the classical liberal natural rights perspective that serves as the basis of the Constitution, then clearly individuals must have the right to keep and bear arms first in order for the government to have the power to have armed forces at all, and nowhere in the Constitution is that individual right said to have been alienated to the government. Even if the Second Amendment didn't exist at all, that wouldn't imply that we didn't have the right to keep and bear arms (9th Amendment). That it does exist makes the case for people not having the right to keep and bear arms an absurd one.
@@wack8697 The first and fourth amendments also talk about "the people" and not just "people". That's just the sort of language that they used. Rights do not become "obsolete" and the purpose of having an armed militia isn't merely to go to war. Why do you suppose the founding fathers went with a militia system instead of a strong standing army to start with? Why do you suppose the Second Amendment specifically references the security of a _free_ state? Free state is contrasted with a despotic state. When a government becomes despotic, it is the right of the people to throw off and abolish that government, by force if necessary.
@@wack8697 Yes, it is. The notion that "the people" somehow only refers to militia members is utterly baseless. "We the people of the United States", "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", "the right of the people to be secure." Do I _want_ a civil war? No. Do I think a civil war can be justified and is sometimes necessary? Yes. Clearly the founding fathers believed in fighting tyrannical governments with an armed population, as that's literally what they did against England. I don't know what "camp" you think I'm in, but I can tell you that I'm in the camp that believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms, the right of secession, and the right of revolution. Rights could only become obsolete if the nature of humanity or the world itself fundamentally changed, and they haven't. I might not agree with the reasons the Confederacy gave for secession and I certainly don't agree with slavery, but they did have the right to secede.
@@wack8697 People have the right to self-determination, yes. Peaceful secession is of course preferable, but if the country that you are seceding from attacks you then you of course have the right to defend yourself.
You should make a video on the Marbury v. Madison court case, I've been learning about it in school, and I would like more information.
Mr. Beat, you MUST do a NYRPA v. Bruen 2022 video next! "Text, history, and tradition" will be the Brandenburg v. Ohio test for future SCOTUS cases!
Nice work here beatmaster beat
Nice video...perfect explanation that I was looking for.
Thanks for helping me on my government project.
Glad it helped!
The real kicker here is that 4 of 9 people thought even a gun at home was too much for you to have.
That's not at all what that judgment means lol
They only said that laws restricting the possession of firearms aren't unconstitutional. Doesn't mean they're politically in favor of those laws being passed.
Their logic also doenst make much sense cuz who exactly defines a well regulated militia? The Government?
It also especially doesn't add up when you consider it's historical intent, because if government becomes tyrannical, the only militias that are going to be "well regulated" are the ones defending that government.
you should read the dissents instead of oversimplifying to the point where it’s meaningless
That's sad that Americans will believe any of these Unconstitutional Lies our Politicians tells us. WE HAVE RIGHTS PEOPLE... LEARN THEM AND EXERCISE THEM...
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
First off I am glad I stumbled across this channel. There is some things that I would disagree with you about but your arguments are valid and logical so excellent job! With that I would like to ask was the castle doctrine considered in this case and is there even such a thing as a castle doctrine? Once again I look forward to seeing more content
The supreme court needs to make it clear about the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.Period!
Those who voted against it should not be allowed on the supreme court
@The RightStuff criminals loose their rights when they break the law. With mentally ill people if they hadn't commited any crimes and haven't done anything bad then yes they have a right to own guns.
I know I can't support you on patreon but Can you pleas make VT and NH Compared
I'm amazed that four justices got this one wrong. THIS is where the activism is, not with Scalia.
Thanks still thinking
People like to argue that since guns have advanced so much since the second amendment was written that it's not applicable and that the founding father's would've reconsidered if it were written today. I would also argue that means of communication has advanced so much since the first amendment was written, so maybe we should reconsider that free speech should be limited to only certain means of communication.
@JUSTIN YE not for a decade or so because the court is 6-3 conservative right now and conservatives tend to defend the constitution more
What you typed made no sense. During the founding of the country the only gun available was the musket which took a minute to reload. It does not compare to the firearms of today where a teenager with a 9th grade education is to keep a well funded police force at bay and murder several people in an instance.
I'm still waiting on a video about no child left behind. Or maybe one on school funding as my school/district is recieving major cuts in the coming year.
What makes a weapon dangerous and unusual? If an M249 SAW or an M203 grenade launcher is just sitting by itself does that make us dangerous?
Well, hammers are used to build houses, and knives are used to cook food, and cars are used to transport cargo and people.
Firearms are used to end life; that's it. That's the sole reason they exist. That's why they're "unusual" as you say.
@@RemixedVoice and bows are too but you don't see people calling for mass bow confiscation.
wow what an exquisite video mr beat
yeah
Hilarious to accuse Scalia of deciding Heller based on his opinion. Read his opinion of the court. Absolutely absurd. It’s an incredibly well written and cited decision.
Read the descent if you want to see someone ruling with their opinion
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv everyone on the left thinks the Stevens dissent is some kind of masterpiece of legal writing. It’s not. Want to see a masterpiece dissent? Read Scalia’s LONE dissent in Morrison v. Olson. It was a case about executive privilege/separation of powers and people are still in awe over its prescience. He was right. SCOTUS should overturn that case too.
You showed AR-15 ass guns that were "dangerous and could be banned" when they actually said guns IN COMMON USE we're protected. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, therefore in common use and therefore protected.
If you don't mind me asking, what kind of video editing software and mic do you use?
Not majority opinion but dissent was judicial activism. "Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clear-cut statement. Stating random accusations against majority opinion without examining factuality is dishonest representation of the case.
Read the dissents, instead of oversimplifying.
Yes, l agree with the Court decision.
Just stumbled upon this video!
US v Miller ruled the 2nd amendment protects military type weapon associated with militia use!
US v Heller ruled the 2nd amendment protect an individual right separate from militia use! Heller also added that gun in common use were also protected, but dangerous and unusual firearms could be regulated?
Future SC needs to define what guns are in common use, and what are considered dangerous & unusual.
If the National Firearms Act of 1934 had not been enacted, would these class of firearms be in common use. There are over 500,000 registered machine guns in the NFA registry, would this be considered common use?
I think the text of the 2nd amendment is all we need to go on! THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Mr Beast!!!! I didnt know you knew so much about the second amendment.
I like how you put the beats in the back
At the founding of the nation, private gunboats were allowed even though some were even better than those of the navy. The people should be able to arm themselves as well as the military at any moment.
I'm an absolutist on the 2nd amendment. So I definitely agree with the decision. I think it should be legal for citizens to own automatic rifles and the 1986 gun ban is disgustingly unconstitutional.
I want one but automatics are awful for home defense
@@santiagosegovia8756 fun as hell to shoot at the range though.
I’m pro gun overall but automatics can do so much damage in the wrong hands. I think they should be difficult to get, just make them super expensive.
Exactly where does it say which guns you have a right to bear? As long as you can still buy a gun of some kind (assuming you pass a background check), all gun restrictions are perfectly constitutional, except for maybe conceal and carry laws.
@@Compucles You have the right to bear any kind of gun.
I personally think the 2nd amendment is a crazy amendment, but I would interpret the meaning the same way, that the 5 majority judges did.
On the point of judicial activism, I feel that the American system of choosing surpreme court judges encourages it to such an extend, that nobody should be surprised that it happens.
Yeah, both sides constantly accuse the other of judicial activism, but I'd argue it doesn't happen as much as most say
why do you think its a crazy one exactley? love an opinion.
Attend the 2A rights rally in DC on November 2nd and join your local militia
Kansas passed the constitutional carry law in 2015. Everyone thought the sky was going to fall. Still no negative consequences to the law.
The Continental Army was disbanded after the Treaty of Paris. We didn't have a permanent standing army. So, the government relied on voluntary militia that were mostly self-equipped. That's what the Second Amendment describes. These militia were called up, for example, to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion.
Actually the militia weren't voluntary. Able-bodied men were conscripted.
Even if it weren't for the Second Amendment, I think you could still argue that the right to own a weapon falls under a general right to property, that the government has to have a compelling state interest in regulating the transfer, possession, or use of property, and that said regulations have to be the minimum to achieve said compelling state interest.
Where are you finding this general right to property? I can’t find it anywhere, unless you’re referring to the Due Process Clause, which protects your property.. until due process.
Heller v DC did very little for 2A protections because it was entirely within federal area.
I do not understand how the conservative judges were accused of activism when they literally went with the objective language of the constitution
Because judging the law as it reads at face value is biased, but reinterpreting it in modern context to fit into politically left agendas is "the correct" judgement to make.
@@wack8697
It isn't unusual for Supreme Court justices to consider not just the literal text of the law, but also consider the intentions of the lawmakers with respect to the time period, the specific circumstances and issues that gave rise to such legislation being written, and any literature written by congressmen at the time to better understand the mindset of the individuals that passed such legislation.
You may already know this, but the 3rd amendment of the constitution is given diminutive nicknames like "the forgotten amendment" and "the worthless amendment" due to its need being lost. It was written in response to the trend of British soldiers forcing themselves upon the colonists during the Revolutionary War to provide housing and meals to them. Obviously, there aren't any soldiers today knocking on people's doors and demanding food or shelter, but we still have that amendment right to be protected by such activity from our military, and the framework that would be used in court when judging this amendment would get traced all the way back to when the US constitution was being drafted and even examining the historical events of the Revolutionary War.
There's a reason why the second amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't say the rights of the National Guard or law enforcement to bear arms shall not be infringed. It says "of the people" when talking about this "well-regulated militia" meant to preserve the security of a free state. If law abiding civilians are the ones that own such firearms and use them sparingly, what's there to fear? If you issue hard crackdowns on firearms with gun control measures, you're only punishing the good law-abiding civilians with firearms. Besides, there are WAY more ways to harm numerous people without using a firearm. Even terrorist groups like ISIS instructed their followers in the US to obtain knives and large vehicles when planning an attack, as they aren't regulated as strictly and are widely/readily available compared to firearms.
Textualist interpretation never works. It's always wrong. The constitution is a living document.
This is kinda weird since I'm from DC and I never knew you could not own any type of gun
Wish we have 2A in Canada.
@internet person I like that proposed clause!
i need my medicinal artillery peice
The way I was told it by my American Government course prof, (a retired 2 star army general, so take that as you will) the original explicit purpose of the second amendment was the thought that citizens should be able to revolt rather easily against any tyrannical government that may happen to take power. I was also told that a large part of this thinking was affected by the war for independence from Britain that had happened recently at the time. That being said, if that was their intent then seemingly none of the judges agreed with this view, as any ban of any kind of weapon, including fully automatic and assault weapons would greatly reduce the ability for citizenry to combat a military equipped with these things.
I was taught the same thing and there are a lot of contemporary sources to back that up
*contemporary to the Bill of Rights, that is
Sadly history doesn't matter to the leftists radicals in the Democratic party
If the constitution says "The people of these United States have the right to..." is it granting said right to the US as a governmental entity, but not to the individuals that live in it? It would be a big stretch to say that.
That's analogous to the argument that it's the militias that have the right to bear arms, but not the people.
3:52 that makes no god damn sense. Why the hell would a government have to give themselves the right to own firearms, and if that was the case why would they even include "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
3:55 they weren't reading it as a "whole", they were just taking one section of the entire amendment and using it to morph it into something is was never meant to be and would be absolutely pointless. The dissent were the closest to having done "judicial activism" compared to the majority.
Hey Mr. Beat love your videos! Any chance you could cover Burwell v. Hobby Lobby? Thanks!
I've been getting a lot of requests for that one lately. You'll be happy to know that it's been on my list for awhile.
Mr. Beat A lot of important cases, not a lot of time. And that's not counting any major cases that will be decided this year like Carpenter v US(how the 4th Amendment applies to smartphone tech)
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Great series!
When danger is seconds away, help is minutes away, that’s why guns are important.
John Paul Stevens said that this decision was the courts worst during his tenure.
You have as much passing a law that will withstand judicial review as passing an amendment. Almost Zero.
With Kennedy and Roberts, that decision could have gone either way.
what is the song called?
also you saved my life, I have to review this case for school.
But why would the goverment give itself the right to have guns that just makes no sense
I basically agree with the Supreme Court here, and I'm shocked it took so long for the 2nd Amendment to be challenged like this. However, I personally have no interest in ever owning a gun, and most people who want one solely for protection are actually more likely to shoot someone they shouldn't rather than a real intruder.
However, did the semis and automatics remained banned? I hope so, since there's no reason any private citizen should ever need one of those over a normal handgun for protection.
"are actually more likely to shoot someone they shouldn't rather than a real intruder"
That's just simply not true. But even if it was true, is that really a reason why you shouldn't have the right to protect yourself with a firearm?
It's great that you live in a place and time you even have the luxury of having this attitude towards firearms ownership, but many people live in the "real world" and are not so lucky. Imagine the ordinary citizen who has (had) this attitude towards firearms who lives in Ukraine, and how they are feeling about it now. The real world is a dangerous and terrifying place, unfortunately many people need to learn that the hard way to have their outlook on firearms and self protection changed.
@@Kanglar It is 100% true. The more guns there are, the more likely a firing incident will occur. A supposedly good citizen can turn bad at a moment's notice. Nobody needs more than a M1911 unless you are in literal fucking warfare, like in Ukraine.
Can you do one for NYSRPA v. Breun?
I wonder if any of the 6 people that brought the case ever actually used a hand gun for self defense afterwards. I’d like to know if the “dangerous drug dealers” were more than a story to get the case heard.
“Where the people fear the government there is tyranny. Where the government fears the people there is liberty”
I’m a leftist and I completely agree that it’s an individual’s right to own, possess and carry a firearm. I would prefer it to be an open carry and not concealed. But that’s just me and my opinion. And lastly remember kids if you go far enough left you get your guns back
and don't forget that dc had the worst gun violence in america during the gun ban
Hi, Americans with all the respect. Im a mexican lawyer. And the 2 amendment you have, for military porpuses is Good. Otherwise is just savage.
It's precedent and yet the 9th circuit just ignores it lol.
Not anymore. No more intermediate scrutiny for gun cases thanks to Bruen
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv 🥳🥳🥳
As Justice Oliver Wendell says “No rights are unlimited”. If this were the case then we wouldn’t see limitations on the first amendment with freedom of the press, religion and petition.
There are limitations on all of those things, though, thankfully, small. You can't lie under oath or signiture, be sexually exposed in public, sexually lure in minors with words, openly incite violence, share classified or call for insurrection. None of these are protected by the first amendment and every single one of those has happened and ended up at the SC level. A more realistic rebuttal to the claim that "the second amendment is not absolute like the rest of the constitution" is that 2A has been more restricted than any other amendment and there is, from an originalist perspective, no precedent for banning certain arms until 1934, only banning certain people from owning them, so it is in all likelyhood absolute when it comes to what can be owned.
The law did allow people to keep rifles and shotguns, but they have to be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" which makes them useless during home invasion (unless removing the lock is very quick). I always thought this case was as much or more 9th Amendment as 2nd, as self-defense and defense of one's home is surely one of those rights protected by the 9th.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I love your vids and there vary educational
Thanks for watching! :D
I agree with the court. The first clause of the 2A is a statement, its not a declaration or command as the second clause is. Since "being necessary to the security of a free State" is an appositive, you can remove that from the sentence and it should still make sense. However, what we're left with is "A well regulated Militia the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" This makes no grammatical sense. Therefore "a well regulated Militia" must also be an apositive. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that a well regulated militia is nor required for the people ti keep and bear arms
Sadly the socialist justices disagree with you. Three of these morons just voted against Bruen because "muh mass shootings". They are an absolute joke
The biggest problem that I have with the constitution is that it was written hundreds of years ago. Technology has greatly advanced, times are different, yet were still basing all our laws on a bunch of amendments written in a time when firearms were little more than sticks that shoot out really fast rocks.
Think about it, back then muskets and pistols were slow to reload; it took 30 seconds in between shots. They were really useful for hunting and self defence because ideally you'll only need to fire one shot to scare off your intruder or to protect yourself.
Now, you can unload 30 bullets in a matter of seconds, guns are easily available and easy to use too. All you have to do is pull the trigger and someone's dead.
I'm all for the right to bear arms, but it's just ridiculous that people are fighting for absolutely no restrictions
i believe there should be restrictions. not many, but to a reasonable degree. However, your argument holds no water by the fact of how you typed this. you typed this on a computer, using words that can be sent hundreds of miles in seconds. Back then, writing was done on a large slow printing press. it could take months for people to learn of news from across the country. technology has advanced, yet the 1A still applies. At the time, people were allowed to own cannons and warships. in fact, most of the federal government's cannons in the early part of the country was done so with a cannon
So you think the founding fathers didnt consider that technology advances?
3:58 But the Second Amendment allows militias to be banned because the power to regulate involves the power to prohibit (see Champion v Ames).
I Support: Indecisive