Since the landmark Bruen decision, Mark Smith, legal scholar and host of The Four Boxes Diner on YouTube, has been vocal about what he sees as significant missteps by courts handling Second Amendment cases. As Smith explains, the Second Amendment isn’t just words on paper; it’s a solid, constitutionally protected right for Americans to keep and bear arms.
However, according to him, many courts are still missing the mark, even with clear Supreme Court guidance from Bruen and Heller.
In his paper, he argues that these cases are crucial for American gun rights moving forward. His recent scholarly paper “Dangerous, but not Unusual: Mistakes Commonly Made by Courts in Post-Bruen Litigation” (embedded below) highlights the core mistakes that could seriously impact the future of lawful firearm ownership. Here’s a breakdown of some of the key points he raises:
Common Use – It’s Not Just for Self-Defense
Regarding the “in common use” standard from Heller. This test means that if millions of law-abiding Americans legally own a type of firearm, the government shouldn’t have the power to ban it. Some courts have twisted this idea, claiming that common use only counts if it’s for self-defense. The paper emphasizes that this narrow view isn’t the law; if millions of people own a gun like the AR-15 for activities like target shooting, hunting, or collecting, that qualifies as “common use” under the Second Amendment.
Click the link to read the whole article: Unpacking Court Mistakes in 2nd Amendment Cases
No comments:
Post a Comment