Video Highlights
- 37 amicus briefs have been submitted to the United States Supreme Court in favor of more gun control.
- Some of these briefs embrace laws from the time of the country's founding that had racist and bigoted foundations.
- The briefs argue that these laws can be used as historical analogs to justify modern gun control laws.
- The burden is on the government to demonstrate that these historical analogs justify the modern gun control laws.
- The Supreme Court is unlikely to embrace these historical analogs as relevant to the Second Amendment.
Video Summary
In a recent video, firearms expert Mark Smith discusses the ongoing case of United States v. Rahimi, which has significant implications for Second Amendment rights in the United States. Mr. Rahimi is facing charges related to domestic violence, and the case raises the question of whether 18 USC 922 G8, which deals with domestic violence orders, is consistent with the Second Amendment. The Department of Justice, led by Merrick Garland, has fast-tracked this case in the hopes of pressuring the Supreme Court to reconsider the methodology it has been using to protect Second Amendment rights.
One of the most notable aspects of this case is the number of amicus briefs that have been submitted in support of the government's position. While some of these briefs claim to not support either party, they all essentially advocate for more gun control. What is particularly concerning is that some of these briefs are embracing historical laws that had racist and bigoted foundations. Despite disclaimers in footnotes, proponents of gun control are using these laws as examples to be considered by the Supreme Court in order to curtail Second Amendment rights.
Smith
