Video Highlights
- Constitutional attorney Mark Smith shares a comprehensive legal argument against AR-15 and magazine bans.
- He emphasizes the importance of understanding the Supreme Court's Heller decision from 2008.
- Smith explains that Heller established an "in common use" test to protect firearms owned by Americans for lawful purposes.
- The recent Serpa v. Bruin decision reaffirmed Heller and did not modify or restrict the legal test.
- Smith emphasizes that the anti-gun argument attempting to narrow Heller is baseless and unsupported by Bruin.
- He provides examples from Bruin that demonstrate the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of Heller as the governing law.
- Smith concludes that AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds are protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.
Video Summary
Constitutional attorney Mark Smith has released a groundbreaking video discussing the most significant legal argument against AR-15 and magazine bans. In this informative presentation, Smith sheds light on the importance of understanding the Supreme Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). He aims to dispel misconceptions and refute the anti-gun community's attempts to narrow the scope of Heller through the recent Serpa v. Bruin decision. Smith's comprehensive analysis provides a strong defense of Second Amendment rights and clarifies the legal status of AR-15s and high-capacity magazines.
Understanding Heller and the "In Common Use" Test: Smith begins by emphasizing the significance of the Heller decision in establishing the right to possess firearms as a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment. Heller's analysis focused on the text of the Second Amendment and the historical context of firearms regulation in America. Crucially, the Supreme Court developed the "in common use" test, which states that if a particular type of arm is in common use among Americans for lawful purposes, it is protected under the Second Amendment. Smith highlights that Heller did not consider the frequency of self-defense incidents involving handguns, underscoring the irrelevance of such statistics to the "in common use" test.
Bruin's Reaffirmation of Heller: Contrary to claims made by anti-gun proponents, Smith explains that the Serpa v. Bruin decision does not modify or limit the legal test established in Heller. Bruin primarily dealt with the issue of carrying handguns for self-defense and, therefore, extensively discussed self-defense as a protected aspect of the Second Amendment. However, it did not alter Heller's core principles or the "in common use" test. Smith points out numerous instances in the Bruin decision that explicitly reaffirm Heller and its precedential value. He emphasizes that Heller remains the governing law, protecting firearms, including AR-15s and magazines with capacities exceeding 10 rounds, as long as they are in common use.
Supreme Court's Methodology and Express Overruling: Smith addresses the misconception that Bruin modified or overruled Heller by providing a comparison with the U.S. Supreme Court's express language in the recent Dobbs decision, which overruled Roe v. Wade. The Court's language in Dobbs clearly indicates its intent to overturn a previous decision. In contrast, there is no similar language in Bruin suggesting any modification, restriction, or overruling of Heller. On.
