Lawyer Explains US Supreme Court 2A Decision! (Part 1)

FREE! Law of Self Defense “HARD TO CONVICT” Webinar!

Provider of Legal Service Memberships (aka “self-defense insurance”)Andrew is personally a member of CCW Safe! Learn more about what they have to offer at:
Save 10% off your first-year membership with code: LOSD10

FREE BOOK! “The Law of Self Defense”
Physical book, 200+ pages, we just ask that you cover the S&H:

Totally free cheat sheet explains the 5-elements of any claim of self-defense, if you don’t understand these 5-elements you cannot have any idea what lawful self-defense consists of, PDF download, zero cost:

NOTE: Nothing in today’s content represents legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice, please retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

#selfdefense #secondamendment #2A #2ndamendment #gunlaw

11 thoughts on “Lawyer Explains US Supreme Court 2A Decision! (Part 1)”

  1. james.corbally

    Is there a path going forward that, if states like NY et al. decide to continue playing games with adding this fee or that fee, or adding new or stricter requirements, that the court could at a later time, based on the now clarified historical standard of review, strike down permitting systems altogether on the grounds that they are being used to deny 2A rights?

  2. Good insurance programs (e.g. CCW Safe, ACLDN) will recommend competent lawyers. It’s their money that will pay for your defense and they won’t want to waste it on a loser.

  3. Question.
    If you want to exercise an enumerated constitutional right.. say the fist amendment. And you wanted to hold a protest in front of city hall. But in order to do so you have to get a permit. In order to get a permit you have to show good moral character. So a questionnaire is sent to you to fill out before a personal interview or hearing takes place with the local sherriff. In order to procure your first amendment right you are put in jeapardy. If you dont answer the questions correctly you lose your right to protest. So my question is, do you have a 5th amendment right against self incrimination? And the exercise of that right cant be used against you? So basically you dont answer any of the questions while aserting the 5th. Would this make a valid constitutional claim? Would a judge rule that your lack of answering questions cant be used as a determining factor as to your moral character?

    1. You don’t lose your right to protest. You can protest all you want as long as you don’t break the law. You just can’t commit an offense while protesting or you will be subject to arrest and prosecution for the offense. You are not arrested and punished for “protesting,” you are arrested and punished for breaking the law “while protesting.”

    2. In reply to your Fifth Amendment questions, the answer is no on both questions. Nobody would be violating your Fifth Amendment right not to answer the questions, and you do not have a Constitutional right to an unlawful assembly or riot.

  4. Well the real matter is that if you want to get a ccw in California they require you show good moral character. Not that im not but dont feel I should be compelled to answer any questions.

  5. Andrew: I know you don’t claim to be a Constitutional lawyer or a gun rights lawyer, but what are your thoughts on the new law New York has passed infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense. Seems to me that almost all provisions of it are unconstitutional. They appear to have thrown a temper tantrum and shown their utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court by passing restrictions on bearing arms that are not even remotely analogous to carry restrictions that were generally applicable in the 13 States between 1776 and 1791.

  6. We should find out fairly quickly how this will go down. One of the cases I have been following, Duncan v Becerra (now Duncan v Bonta), concerns magazine restrictions in California and was vacated and remanded to the 9th Circuit for review in light of NYR&PA v Bruen. Duncan won in the district court and at the 3-judge panel so the majority of liberal justices in the 9th Circuit called for an en banc hearing with the predictable result. In the unlikely event that the 9th Circuit follows NYR&PA v Bruen they will let the 3-judge panel ruling stand or simple reissue the en banc opinion by basically paraphrasing the original dissent that correctly states the law. This is about as likely as Nancy Pelosi voting for Donald Trump in the next election. There were three other gun control cases sent back for remand with this one, and my guess is that all the circuit courts will all come up with some preposterous new theory that will uphold the various statutes in these cases unless they have replaced some of their liberal justices since then. Their “historical analysis” will simply come to the conclusion that the statute meets constitutional muster.

    The question becomes whether the Supreme Court will immediately set them straight or if we have to wait for another twelve years before they address this. Pretty much every circuit court addressing the 2nd Amendment since Heller & McDonald have taken the approach of let’s uphold the statute and wait for the Supreme Court to overturn us; they will bet on the fact it will be a long time coming again.

    As an aside, I highly recommend reading Judge Bumatay’s dissent in Duncan v Becerra, he is spot on in pointing out the errors in the 9th Circuit’s majority opinion and discussing the approach they need to use to decide this case correctly. I suspect Justice Thomas spent some time reading this before he wrote NYR&PA v Bruen:

    You can also read the original circuit court order here:

    Judge Benitez writes an excellent analysis, and you can’t help but love his wrap-up:
    “This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.”

Leave a Comment