FEDERAL COURT Bans Firearms as Dangerous and Unusual: Short Barreled Rifle SBR and Machine Gun
Summary
TLDRThe 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
📜 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.
🔍 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.
🚔 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.
🔗 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Second Amendment
💡Short Barrel Rifles (SBRs)
💡Machine Guns
💡Federal Trial Court
💡Indictments
💡Historical Tradition
💡Dangerous and Unusual
💡Heller Decision
💡Precedential Value
💡Ninth Circuit Court
💡Miller and Helvering Decision
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]
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Teens On Guns in America | NPR
Gibbons vs Ogden Explained in 5 Minutes (1824): US History Review
Interview with Oklahoma State Sen. Nathan Dahm | The Problem with Jon Stewart
IMPORTANT: Is Open Carry Protected By 2A?
BIG 2A CONTROVERSY: WAS RITTENHOUSE RIGHT?
EUA é um país que convive com a violência política no cotidiano, diz professor | AGORA CNN
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)