The longer form video will be out this evening!
-----------------
TIMESTAMPS
-----------------

0:00 Intro
1:32 Takeaway #1
3:14 Takeaway #2
5:07 Takeaway #3
6:20 Takeaway #4
8:13 Takeaway #5
10:08 Wrap Up

-----------------

The Four Boxes Diner serves up hot, fresh Second Amendment and gun rights news and analysis. Here you’ll find everything you need to understand and defend YOUR constitutional rights including your right to keep and bear arms. In just a few minutes, you’ll get the inside scoop from constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, who is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, a New York Times bestselling author, a Presidential Scholar at the King’s College, a frequent Fox News guest, and the author of First They Came for the Gun Owners, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and Duped: How the Anti-gun Lobby Exploits the Parkland School Shooting, and How Gun Owners Can Fight Back.

-----------------

Your rights are in jeopardy today. To defend your liberty, you need to understand the “four boxes” of American liberty: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammunition box. We give you the information you need to do just that at the Four Boxes Diner, your source for Bill of Rights news and for identifying gun control efforts in the name of so-called gun safety. Subscribe to the Four Boxes Diner now to learn how to protect your rights.

-----------------
SUMMARY
-----------------
Oral argument in the biggest Second Amendment case in more than a decade is now in the history book. The Supreme Court justices heard argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The big takeaway is that I’m confident the Second Amendment will prevail in the Bruen case. But there remain questions about how significant a victory that will be.

5 takeaways from oral argument.

First, none of the key justices expressed support for changing what’s called the “standard of review,” which refers to how the courts should assess the constitutionality of laws. In Heller, the Supreme Court set a clear standard of review. The constitutionality of gun laws turns on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment and gun rights during America’s Founding period. The anti-gunners have been arguing for a different standard of review. The introduction of an interest-balancing analysis would give the courts an opportunity to bless restrictions that are wholly out of step with our history and traditions. At oral argument, Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh weren’t going for it. If the Court rejects interest balancing altogether, that is a win for the Second Amendment.

Second, while the parties seemed to agree that history is key under the Heller analysis, oral argument featured surprisingly little discussion about the Founding-era record. The more consequential debate seemed to be over which history is relevant. The U.S. government pressed for extending the analysis all the way into the late nineteenth century and even into the twentieth century.

The third takeaway from the argument was the discussion of so-called “sensitive place.” or gun free zones. The term “sensitive places” comes from the Heller decision. One paragraph in that ruling seemingly blessed restrictions on carrying guns in sensitive places. The only examples the Heller opinion gave were schools and government buildings. In the Bruen argument, all the justices seemed to be on board with the general concept of sensitive places.

The fourth takeaway: Public safety was a recurrent theme at oral argument. That’s because the anti-gun side needs to convince the Court to use another standard of review, since they can’t make a strong case from text, history, and tradition. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito both suggested that the need for self-defense is greater in more concentrated, high-crime areas than in more rural areas and also from Justice Kavanaugh. If the Court adopts a text, history, and tradition approach, the public-safety arguments will essentially be irrelevant. But if it instead applies tiers of scrutiny, they will be front and center.

Finally, the fifth takeaway. The key question from oral argument -- Is the Second Amendment a normal right? New York argued that the right to bear arms may apply differently in the city and the countryside, with the government getting a lot of discretion to decide how it applies. But even Justice Kagan (who generally is anti 2A) seemed to indicate that New York’s argument is not typically how we treat constitutional rights. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh also pushed back on this point.

Expect a decision some time before June 2022.

Further reading:
Oral argument recording: [ Ссылка ]

свернуть