FEDERAL COURT Bans Firearms as Dangerous and Unusual: Short Barreled Rifle SBR and Machine Gun

Summary

The video discusses a federal trial court ruling that short barrel rifles and machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. It critiques the judge's reasoning, highlighting the 'dangerous and unusual' argument's historical context and its application to modern firearms like AR-15s. The video also addresses the potential implications for gun rights, noting the ruling's lack of precedential value but its potential to influence future cases.

Takeaways

• 📜 The federal trial court ruled against short barrel rifles and machine guns, stating they are not protected by the Second Amendment.
• 🔍 The case revolves around an individual, Mr. Christopher Chan, who was pursued by the Honolulu Police Department for erratic behavior, leading to the discovery of his short barrel rifle and machine gun.
• 🚔 The Honolulu Police Department's intervention resulted in the confiscation of Mr. Chan's firearms, which were central to the legal dispute.
• ⚖️ Mr. Chan argued that his firearms were protected under the Second Amendment, but the government and the judge disagreed, citing historical traditions of firearm regulation.
• 🗣️ The judge's decision referenced the Heller decision, emphasizing that only weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes are protected.
• 🔥 The script discusses the 'dangerous and unusual' argument, which has been used to regulate certain types of firearms and is central to the case against Mr. Chan.
• 📊 The court used intersectionality to argue that short barrel rifles make up a small percentage of all firearms, suggesting they are not in common use.
• 🏛️ Historical context is provided, discussing the origins of the 'dangerous and unusual' doctrine and its application in past legal cases.
• 🔒 The case could potentially influence future regulations on a wider range of firearms, not just short barrel rifles and machine guns.
• ⏫ The decision is not precedent-setting as it comes from a trial court, but it may influence other courts' decisions, creating persuasive precedent.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video script?

The main topic of the video script is the federal trial court ruling that short barrel rifles and machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Who is Mr. Christopher Chan and what is his relevance to the case?

Mr. Christopher Chan is the defendant in the case who was stopped by the Honolulu Police Department with a short barreled rifle and machine gun in his car, leading to the legal dispute about the constitutionality of these weapons.

What is the significance of the Second Amendment in this context?

The Second Amendment is significant as it is the part of the U.S. Constitution that protects the right to bear arms, and the case revolves around whether short barrel rifles and machine guns fall under this protection.

What is the 'dangerous and unusual' argument mentioned in the script?

The 'dangerous and unusual' argument is a legal doctrine that suggests weapons which are not typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, are not protected by the Second Amendment.

What historical case is referenced in the script regarding dangerous and unusual weapons?

The script references the case of Sir John Knight from the 1680s in England, which is used to illustrate the historical context of what constitutes 'dangerous and unusual' weapons.

What is the role of the Heller decision in this discussion?

The Heller decision is a Supreme Court case that affirmed the right to bear arms for self-defense and is cited in the script to discuss the historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Why does the script mention the 2016 Katano decision?

The script mentions the 2016 Katano decision to highlight the court's reasoning regarding the 'unusual' aspect of weapons and to discuss the numbers of certain firearms in circulation.

What does the court's decision in the case of United States versus Chan imply for the future of firearm regulations?

The decision implies that if upheld, it could set a precedent for further regulation or banning of certain types of firearms, such as short barrel rifles and machine guns, under the 'dangerous and unusual' doctrine.

How does the script suggest the court's decision could impact other types of firearms beyond short barrel rifles and machine guns?

The script suggests that the reasoning used in the court's decision could be applied to other firearms, such as AR-15s, if they are deemed 'dangerous and unusual'.

What are the potential next steps for the case as discussed in the script?

The script suggests that the case could potentially go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly even to the United States Supreme Court, which could ultimately shape laws regarding various types of firearms.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Court Ruling on Firearms

The video discusses a federal trial court ruling that short barrel rifles and machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. The case revolves around Mr. Christopher Chan from Hawaii, who was charged for possessing a short barrel rifle and a machine gun after an incident involving erratic behavior. Chan argued that these weapons are protected under the Second Amendment, but the court disagreed, citing historical firearm regulations and the concept of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons. The judge, appointed by President Obama, used the Heller decision as a reference, which states that regulations must align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. The video also mentions the potential impact of this ruling on other types of firearms, like AR-15s.

05:01

🔍 Analyzing 'Dangerous and Unusual'

The video delves into the concept of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, which are not protected by the Second Amendment. It explains that this idea originated from an 18th-century author, William Blackstone, who discussed weapons used to terrify people. The video contrasts this historical context with modern interpretations, pointing out that the Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller decision did not define 'dangerous and unusual' but rather focused on weapons in common use. The presenter argues that the court's current application of this concept is flawed, as it does not consider the context in which the weapons are used or the fact that many firearms, including short barrel rifles and pistols, are in common use for self-defense.

10:02

🚔 The Legal Precedent and Intersectionality

The discussion continues with the presenter examining how the court uses legal precedents, such as the 1939 Miller decision and the 2008 Heller decision, to argue that short barrel rifles are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The video challenges this notion by pointing out that there are millions of such firearms in the United States, questioning the court's use of intersectionality to argue that they are not in common use. The presenter also criticizes the government's tactic of parsing data to support their argument, comparing it to the way car models can be broken down into increasingly specific categories to suggest that they are not common.

15:03

🔗 Potential Outcomes and Appeals

The final paragraph discusses the potential outcomes of the case. The presenter notes that while the ruling against short barrel rifles and machine guns is not precedent-setting because it comes from a trial court, it could influence other courts as persuasive precedent. The video also speculates on the possibility of the case being appealed to higher courts, which could ultimately shape laws regarding various types of firearms. The presenter concludes with a quote emphasizing the importance of fair treatment and retribution, suggesting that the legal system should be equally protective of rights and punitive of wrongs.

Keywords

💡Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In the video, the discussion revolves around whether certain types of firearms, such as short barrel rifles and machine guns, are protected under this amendment. The script mentions a court case where the defendant, Mr. Chan, argues that his firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, while the government contends they are not.

💡Short Barrel Rifles (SBRs)

Short Barrel Rifles are firearms with barrels shorter than 16 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches. The video discusses a court ruling that deems SBRs as 'dangerous and unusual,' and thus not protected by the Second Amendment. The script uses the example of Mr. Chan's SBR to illustrate the debate over what types of firearms are constitutionally protected.

💡Machine Guns

Machine guns are firearms designed to fire, or capable of being fired, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The video script discusses how machine guns are also categorized as 'dangerous and unusual' by the court in the case mentioned, leading to the argument that they are not covered by the Second Amendment.

💡Federal Trial Court

A Federal Trial Court is a court of the United States federal judiciary that hears civil and criminal cases. In the context of the video, the Federal Trial Court in Hawaii is where the case against Mr. Chan is being tried, and it is the source of the ruling that is being critiqued in the video.

💡Indictments

Indictments are formal charges or accusations of a crime, usually by a grand jury. In the video, the script mentions that Mr. Chan faces indictments for possessing a short barrel rifle and a machine gun, which he argues should be legal under the Second Amendment.

💡Historical Tradition

Historical tradition refers to the long-established customs or practices in a society. The video discusses how the court's decision is based on the historical tradition of firearm regulation, specifically citing the Heller decision and William Blackstone's writings to argue that 'dangerous and unusual' weapons are not protected.

💡Dangerous and Unusual

The term 'dangerous and unusual' is used in the context of the Second Amendment to describe weapons that are not typically possessed for lawful purposes. The video script critiques the court's application of this term to SBRs and machine guns, arguing that the historical context of this term is being misapplied.

💡Heller Decision

The Heller decision refers to the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes. The video script references this decision in discussing the court's rationale for its ruling on SBRs and machine guns.

💡Precedential Value

Precedential value refers to the principle that judicial decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts. The video script notes that the ruling from the Federal Trial Court in Hawaii has zero precedential value because it is not from a higher appellate court, but it can still influence other judges' decisions.

💡Ninth Circuit Court

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a federal court that covers several western states, including Hawaii. The video suggests that the case could potentially be appealed to this court, which would then have the power to establish precedent that could affect laws regarding firearms.

💡Miller and Helvering Decision

The Miller and Helvering decision refers to the 1939 Supreme Court case United States v. Miller, which upheld the National Firearms Act. The video script discusses how this decision is used in the court's ruling to argue that short barrel shotguns and by extension, SBRs, are not typically used for lawful purposes and thus are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Highlights

Federal trial court rules against short barrel rifles and machine guns, declaring they are not protected by the Second Amendment.

The case involves an individual, Mr. Christopher Chan, who was pursued by the Honolulu Police Department for erratic behavior.

Chan allegedly endangered pedestrians with a short-barreled rifle and a converted machine gun.

Chan argued that his weapons were bearable arms protected by the Second Amendment.

The government rejected Chan's argument, stating that the weapons are not protected and can be regulated.

Judge appointed by President Obama cites historical tradition of firearm regulation in the decision.

The court uses the 'dangerous and unusual' argument to classify weapons outside the Second Amendment's protection.

The video discusses the historical context of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, dating back to the 1680s.

The court's decision is based on the argument that short barrel rifles and machine guns are not in common use.

The video challenges the court's logic by comparing the prevalence of certain vehicles to firearms.

The court cites nine other federal district courts that have decided short barrel rifles are dangerous and unusual.

The court references the 1939 US Supreme Court decision in Miller to support its stance on short barrel shotguns.

The video points out potential hypocrisy in the court's引用 of 'for lawful purposes' versus 'for self-defense'.

The case could potentially go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and even the United States Supreme Court.

The video concludes with a quote from the Romans emphasizing the importance of repaying both friends and enemies.

Transcripts

[Music]

[Music]

we have a big ruling coming out of a

federal trial court that goes against

short barrel rifles and machine guns

declaring that they are not protected by

the Second Amendment I'm going to be

going through a lot of the arguments

here about what they brought up why it's

wrong you're not going to want to miss

this one because even if you do not care

abouts machine guns you you are going to

care about the reasoning because you

will see this Playbook come back for

AR-15s and just about everything else so

guys let's get into

[Music]

it all right so I'm going to hit you

with some quick facts of what's going on

in the federal trial court so basically

back on August 16th of 2022 there was an

individual later known as the defendant

Mr Christopher Chan who basically would

be contacted by the Honolulu Police

Department we are in the Great Aloha

state of Hawaii because there was

reports of erratic Behavior now before

they could reach him in his high-rise

apartment Mr Chan leaves the building

I'm not going to call it Chase but let's

just say there was a Pursuit that wound

up having Mr Chan allegedly endangered

different pedestrians and individuals as

he was on his way to I believe it was

his mother's nearby residence now

ultimately HPD Honolulu Police

Department

wind up making the stop on the car and

they dig out of the trunk a short

barreled rifle I think about 10 in and

change Barrel as well as having a

conversion to a full automatic machine

gun and that of course would be the

subject of the indictments and the

indictments were the subject of the

motion to dismiss which is the reason

why we're talking about this because Mr

Chan said look these are bearable arms

they're protected by the Second

Amendment and they should be legal and

the laws that basically seek to regulate

and quash these are unconstitutional the

government predictably rejects that

denies that and the judge wound up

writing a decision that you will find

attach in the description box below in

the case of United States versus Chan

let's get to that as well as the law the

judge Who was appointed by President

Obama started out looking okay when he

cites to at least inart the relevant law

citing to the Bro decision quote when

the second amendment's plain text covers

an individual's conduct the Constitution

presumptively protects that conduct to

justify its regulation the government

must demonstrate that the regulation is

consistent with this nation's historical

tradition of firearm regulation only if

a firearm regulation is consistent with

this nation's historical tradition May a

court conclude that the individual's

conduct Falls outside of the second

amendment's unqualified command all

right so so far so good we're talking

about weapons I would have loved to see

some language in there talking about

common use and that kind of stuff but

unfortunately if not predictably we

eventually get to this little guy quote

weapons that are dangerous and unusual

are not in common use and therefore do

not fall within the scope of the Second

Amendment that's right boys and girls

we're talking about dangerous use again

we did a whole video where we deep dived

this last week hopefully it's coming up

on a card right now if you want to check

it out came up in the context of

discussing a trial that's going on in

Illinois right now concerning the

proteced Illinois communities act where

Illinois is effectively seeking to ban

AR-15s AKs you name it and one of the

big topics for that entire trial is

what's dangerous unusual so I do

something of a deep dive on that there

I'm going to cover a couple bits of this

later on in this video so be sure to

stick around all right now this is where

I have to get one of those qualifiers

out there so that you don't confuse me

with a President Obama appointed judge

or the United States Supreme Court not

that that happens too often but when it

does it's in the comment section I did

not write the 2008 hel decision that's

the United States Supreme Court decision

so when they said and this court in

Hawaii cites to quote we think that

limitation is fairly supported by the

historical tradition of prohibiting the

carrying of dangerous and unusual

weapons heler is not citing to Tom

grieve they are citing to a very

important 18th century author by the

name of William Blackstone quick story

here coming up on that heler basically

creates the lane that all of these

anti-gun judges and groups are trying to

jam AR-15s AK-47s and of course sprs

short barrel rifles short barrel

shotguns machine guns you name it into

and that's the loophole of dangerous and

unusual weapons are not protected by the

Second Amendment and therefore you can

basically regulate them to your heart's

intent yes that is low resolution I

appreciate that but stick with me here

all right give me a little artistic

license be sure to stick around to the

end where I'm going to give you three

big takeaways on this whole thing also

of course our ever popular quote of the

day don't forget to hit that like button

now back to the video Okay so we've got

this dangerous and unusual weapons are

not protected by the Second Amendment

and it's key that it's not dangerous or

unusual it's dangerous and unusual we're

going to be talk about the numbers in a

little bit here I've got the specific

numbers for short bear rifles but where

did this all come from because that's

very very important here remember we're

talking about history and tradition as

being in a lot of ways the backbone of

how we are to understand the Second

Amendment so when hel in 2008 the United

States Supreme Court in 2008 cites to

William Blackstone what was Blackstone

talking about when he was talking about

dangerous and unusual well he was

talking about the fact that you cannot

have weapons that are dangerous and

unusual that you're using to terrify the

people this is part of a class of

offenses known as a offenses in other

words you're not looking simply at the

mere possession of the weapon unto

itself we're taking that as part of the

important context of what we are doing

with those weapons and if you don't want

to believe me the guy on YouTube for it

I understand that but the good news is

you don't have to because we've got

history and a quick Story coming up so

there was a case back in the middle of

the 1680s yes this was not something

that's cherry-picked it winds up being

continued in cited all throughout the

1700s and even 1819 we're going back to

England we're going back to just before

the Glorious Revolution for you history

students out there I know this is not

going to be boring stick with me so the

government we're talking about England

charged this individual by the name of

Sir John Knight who was a prominent

critic of King James II with violating

the statute of Northampton because he

allegedly quote did walk about the

streets armed with guns and that he went

into the church of St Michael in Bristol

in the time Divine service with a gun to

terrify the king's subject end quote so

notice that even in the charging

language so to speak the accusatory

language they included to terrify the

king's subjects now they're not doing

that because it's fun they're doing that

because they need to it's an element of

the lawsuit chief justice further

explained one's conduct will come within

the act the ACT being what he's being

charged with here I.E would terrify the

king's subjects only where the the crime

shall appear to be Malo Animo end quote

that means we're talking about evil

intent or malice Knight was ultimately

acquitted by the jury why because he had

death threats on him and he was going

about armed not because he was trying to

terrify people but because he was trying

to protect himself keep in mind 1680s

handguns and Firearms not exactly the

most common thing that are kicking about

hence the argument for these are

dangerous and unusual weapons and even

then they said look it's not the mere

possession we're seeing historical

malpractice if you will of understanding

what Blackstone was talking about and un

misunderstanding I would say what the

United States Supreme Court was talking

about when they alluded to this notion

this principle this doctrine of

dangerous and unusual it's not just

dangerous and unusual there's a

dangerous and unusual comboed up with

the context and how it's used and of

course this belies the fact that is a sh

air rifle let's let's take AR-15s is an

intrinsically more dangerous than a

regular AR-15 it's mildly lighter mildly

smaller is it really going to change how

you use it all that much absent getting

in and out of cars while in full kit

probably not the terminal ballistics get

a little bit worse is that very

meaningful in a defensive action

probably not at least not if you have

shorter engagement distances how is an S

spr more dangerous than an air15 pistol

which is absolutely legal the butt stock

is slightly different but to an

untrained individual these are identical

Firearms yet one is perfectly legal and

the other one is a felony subject to

federal and state indictments what's

going on here and of course all this

blies the fact that while there may be

qualitatively little to no difference

between these

rifles combined we're talking about a15s

and AR-15 pistols 24 million plus plus

in the United States alone I know what a

lot of you are going to say but what

about the 2016 katano decision that ca t

o for those of you driving those of you

riding your lawnmowers right now and you

can't see the the words on the screen

what about the 2016 katano decision that

was the decision where the United States

Supreme Court in a percum decision in

other words they all agreed on it struck

down the Massachusetts law that ban stun

guns and in a concurring opinion in

other words it's not really part of the

law it's another judge that is a green

with it with what the court did in this

case but they writing a concurring

opinion to kind of put out some of their

own reasoning they cited the fact that

there are couple hundred, stun guns in

circulation here we have about

532,250multifamily unusual look at

katano stung guns were good well the

court basically says look this reasoning

was not adopted by the majority it

wasn't part of the decision it was only

part of this concurring opinion and even

so the court went on to argue we've seen

this before and we will see it again

that those numbers mean little about

whether or not it's telling us that sprs

are in quote unquote common use let

alone if they are in and here's the gold

poost moving in common use for

self-defense keep in mind the anties are

trying to say that it's not good enough

that something's in common use it must

be in common use for

self-defense which would of course would

eliminate well a lot of different

firearms that are protected but if you

want to know more about that argument

about in commmon use versus Inc commmon

use for self-defense let me know in the

comment field down below for now we

press on now the government tries to

turn this half million and change s

number around by pointing out that that

is according to them approximately. 13%

of all firearms in the United States

today they're of course making the

argument that hey how is 0.13% in common

use here's the problem with that logic

if you want to get super intersectional

with this let's take cars as an example

Chevys are I think by anyone's

definition in common use in the United

States when it comes at looking at what

are the vehicles on the road but we can

really start to parse this by well

Cadillac GMC Chevy and then let's start

looking at specific types of things

let's look at a specific car uh let's

say a Tahoe all right well tahos they're

we're no longer talking about the 23% of

cars that are Chevys we're now talking

about whatever subset are tahos so can

the government ban tahos if there's some

sort of common use Tahoe car test well

now let's further break it down we've

got different additions of tahos we've

got different years of tahos different

lines we've got does it have leather

does it not have leather what's the

engine type does it of bucket seats in

the second row versus bench

seats we start talking about colors we

start talking about Wheels all this

other kind of stuff you can see how you

can get to the super intersectional game

here so that virtually there's nothing

that is in common use if you just want

to keep splitting hairs and again this

is a tactic that I've seen in other

lawsuits and in other arguments that the

government's using here and I just want

to put you guys on notice that you know

it's out there because it will keep

coming back back another thing that this

court basically rests its hat on when

talking about sprs is the fact that look

there are nine other federal district

courts out there including Minnesota

Western District of North Carolina North

Dakota Nevada southern district of

Illinois eastern district of California

southern district of Mississippi

Connecticut and Northern District of

Oklahoma who have all decided that short

barrel rifles are dangerous and unusual

they're just basically going to be

putting their name on a list and here's

the last big argument that the court

uses to basically say short barrel

rifles are dangerous unusual they quote

heler and heler here is talking about

the 1939 US Supreme Court decision which

talks about Miller which is upholding

broadly the National Firearms Act and of

course short barar shotgun prohibition I

happy to Deep dive Miller heler and how

this all plays together again let me

know in the common field down below if

enough people want it I'm more than

happy to go into that so this is what

heler says about Miller quote we

therefore read Miller to say only that

the Second Amendment does not protect

those weapons not typically possessed by

law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes

such as short bail shotguns period and

quote number one they didn't say for

self-defense they said for lawful

purposes so you know it's interesting

that of course the same court is saying

they're trying to bring up this anti-gun

for self-defense purpose when they're

then later on quoting heler the United

States Supreme Court which talks about

for lawful purposes but you know setting

some cognitive dissonance that's a

politically correct way of saying

hypocrisy and some other issues to the

side we've got this issue that heler has

basically blessed short barrel shotgun

prohibition and short barrel shotgun and

short barrel rifles if you can ban one

why can't you ban the other in essence

so you can see how the court is going to

build on Miller on heler on the nine

other district courts the federal trial

courts that are out there they're going

to use intersectionality to parse these

numbers down to 0.1 1 3% they're going

to use all that to ultimately deny the

motion when it comes to short barar

rifles so what about machine guns well

basically there was a ninth Circuit

Court decision so remember that's the

circuit court that sits over Hawaii so

basically its decisions are controlling

for Hawaii and the judge in the Hawaii

case here Chan says this we don't think

or I don't think that the 20122 Brun

decision by the United States Supreme

Court fundamentally changes the logic

that that decision was based on that the

Henry Court in the ninth circuit used to

determine that machine guns are

dangerous and unusual therefore decision

still stands therefore machine guns are

still dangerous unusual done so there's

basically three things as part of this

outcome number one sbrs and machine guns

are not protected by the Second

Amendment because they have been found

to be dangerous and unusual by this

Hawaii judge number two if you're

panicking about number one don't worry

this case is of zero precedential value

because this is coming from a trial

court not a federal court of appeals

it's not coming from a state supreme

court and it's certainly not coming from

the United States Supreme Court those

are the precedent setting courts but as

you already saw in this case it can

create what we call persuasive precedent

in the eyes of other courts and judges

to see what other people are doing other

judges are doing and then they can

bandwagon along number three however

this could go to the n9th Circuit qut

appeals and maybe even Beyond to the

United States Supreme Court to

ultimately shape our laws that that

control all of us on short bar rifles

machine guns and who knows maybe SP SPSS

short bar shotguns destructive devices

aows any other weapons You Name It We

Appreciate You sticking around this long

what do you think is going to happen

with this case what do you think is

going to happen with these laws do you

think sprs at the end of the day 5 10

years from now are going to be found to

be constitutionally protected or they're

dangerous and unusual weapons or

something else let's close out with our

ever popular quote of the day this one

comes from the Romans

and it's comes from Mr saah or Sula s u

l l a quote no better friend No Worse

Enemy No friend ever served me no enemy

ever wronged me whom I have not repaid

in full end quote kind of a fun one

slightly different than usual but

hopefully you got something out of that

we appreciate you sticking around don't

forget to hit that like button and I'll

see you in the next one thanks for

sticking around to the end of the video

If you enjoyed this one please feel free

to check out some of our other great

content and we'll see you in the next

one

[Music]