How the Supreme Court Made It Easier to Get a Gun | McDonald v. Chicago 

I have 3 in mind Jacobellis vs Ohio United States v. Darby Lumber Co Carroll vs United States

I'm still waiting for my request

Bethel School District v. Fraser, surprised this hasn’t been covered by you yet.

@@matthewtyppo5727I second that and would add Hammer v. Daggenhart because of Darby.

Trump v. Anderson seems to be the inevitable one! Less than 2 weeks away, now.

Not only are they armed, they are psychic!

At least the're protecting our gun rights

Not only do they have the right to bear robes, but they have the right to bear arms. Besides, the robes don't let them have bare arms.

This a true fact.

You might not joke about that if you were in Mr McDonald's shoes. Imagine being afraid in your own house

​@@michaelhall7546some people use humor as a coping mechanism to deal with their traumas

I have a meme of Ronald and all the other fast food mascots confronting Wimpy on Tuesday asking for their money 😂

@@iammrbeat In Chicago that’s very true. Chicago has lots of gun control have lots of crime. New Hampshire has a very little uncontrol and very little crime.

Thanks for being here early!

Now write something new 😊

@@balabanasiretidamn pal it’s not that serious

@@iammrbeat Yup. Also, I’m cool and I am not watching the other video because I already saw it and know the same scenario for the DC vs Heller case.

Maybe because "fundamental" doesn't refer to the specific laws of the United States or any other single country. It means the same thing as the "inalienable rights" referenced in the Declaration of Independence, the natural rights of mankind that should exist in *every* country (albeit some still don't in some countries). Most countries don't have a right to bear arms, and their human rights records are no worse because of it. Now whether that's a legitimate argument in this case, that's a different question.

When a supreme court justice says something is settled and is precedent be worried they are looking to change it. Evidence: Amy coney barret said roe v wade was established and we know what happened with that.

@Compucles This is what fascinates me so much about law. It comes down to interpretation of definitions of specific words. Sometimes I wonder if the founding fathers knew how close we would be ripping apart their exact words and trying to interpret them. Maybe they would've written it differently if they knew 😆

No such thing as 'settled' law...never has been that way, in any country at any time...

@@mrwess1927 Amy coney barret said roe v wade was established and we know what happened with that. -Any prior ruling is necessarily precedent, but any overturning involves changing precedent. Otherwise something like the Dred Scott case would never be over ruled. Difference is Constitutional rights are enumerated, and extrapolations like Roe or Scott were not enumerated.

However, their mental state and means to express it does.

@@josephpostma1787I own over 20 guns and I still serving in the Army and I’m in charge of my current units Arms room with 200 M-4s and dozens of machine guns. Does that concern you?

​@@Warhead_235Do you have a history of mental illness? Do you plan on shooting innocent people? If not yeen got nun to worry bout

@conservative_hustler_fitness Are you mentally ill??? You are for sure a meat head, but are you mentally ill???

⁠@@Warhead_235No, as you would past any psychological tests as you are an upstanding person which I thank for your service. Other non upstanding citizens however? I would be concerned. And I believe you would be as well, given that you too would use your weapons for self defense. It’s not wrong to prevent putting guns in the wrong hands. Thank you for your service again.

Impactful Supreme Court cases so far. The states are being quite resistant along with some lower courts in applying these rulings, like the previous 10 years after Heller and McDonald, and thus more cases are ending up before the Supreme Court.

NYSRPA v. Bruen would be a great subject to do a video on. The ruling impacted my life because I live in Los Angeles where up until 2023 it was very difficult to get a concealed carry permit and they were only being issued to wealthy and famous people. Because of the ruling, I was able to get a permit because local law enforcement agencies (in California, CCW permits are issued by county sheriffs and city police, not state government) had to change their policies to comply with the court ruling. It's nice that because I was able to get a permit to carry I can now exercise my constitutional rights.

I was just about to make a comment asking for this, here here!

That's a pretty solid point. But it doesn't change the fact that more guns = more dead people. This has been backed up by evidence many times. The leading cause of death among children is guns. We have more mass shootings in a year than all other developed nations combined. I'm pro gun ownership, especially in the home and in controlled environments like shooting competition, hunting, and general gun training and practice. I also think it's very difficult to control the proliferation of at least basic firearms. But there has to be limits. Gun powder and bullets should be highly regulated and open and public carry is ludicrous.

@@lephtovermeet But it doesn't change the fact that more guns = more dead people -Yet the group that owns the most guns in the US has a homicide rate below the national average. This has been backed up by evidence many times. -No it hasn't. People have improperly drawn conclusions, but if you look at ownership by demographic and their respective homicide rates, there is not a positive correlation between ownership and homicide e leading cause of death among children is guns -It isn't, read the methodology, they include ages that aren't children and exclude actual ages for children. 0-18 this claim is not true. We have more mass shootings in a year than all other developed nations combined. -Because we have a uniquely violent demographic, which accounts for the majority of those shootings. Gun powder and bullets should be highly regulated and open and public carry is ludicrous. -Open carry nor handloading are not the issue, not even remotely.

@@thinkharder9332 FBI statistics, I believe 2021 or 2022, around 100 dead in 60 mass shootings that year. FBI's definition thereof is (paraphrased) any attempt to cause a mass casualty event in a public place. Other statistics deliberately include much broader definitions in order to inflate the numbers. For context, firearm homicides number around 20,000 a year, heart disease 700,000. 100 a year is nothing. The Pew Research Center agrees with me here, that trying to stop mass shootings in particular through reduced access to firearms won't meaningfully reduce gun-related homicides. In fact, for crimes for which there was data, 2021 again I believe, handguns were used in 59% of homicides, rifles 3%, and shotguns 1%. And, for anyone who says 2A is about hunting, it's worth considering the context, both within the document and the time it was written. "Well-regulated" in those days did not mean well-restricted, but well-trained and well-equipped. The National Guard did not exist, there was no standing army. Militiamen supplied their own arms. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the phrase "well-regulated militia" most probably meant that people should be allowed to keep and bear arms, so a militia/standing army could be raised, as had been done during the American Revolution. That is what the founding fathers were considering here, that people should be allowed to own arms in order to organize themselves against tyrrany. The modern descendent of these militias is the National Guard, but applying this modern redefinition back to something written in the 18th century is a little dumb. Additionally, the first 10 amendments, organized into the Bill of Rights as they are, are by and large a collection of civil rights and liberties given by birthright to the citizens of the US, guaranteed by the government. Especially within this context, the meaning of the clause "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" should be clear. In those days, "Arms" meant any and every weapon in existence and/or common use. People owned cannons, small arms far superior to the muskets of the day, you name it. It wasn't about hunting, unless you were hunting redcoats. Saying a rifle is "military grade" only means that the people should be allowed to own it. The Sharps Carbines that John Brown & co. used to fight in Bleeding Kansas and at Harpers Ferry were far more capable than any rifle or musket used by the US military at the time (think AR vs bolt-action). Those were acquired legally. If someone says the 2A wasn't ever used to fight tyranny, you can point them to his actions.

​@@thinkharder9332Everything you have said is a bunch of bullshit constantly paraded that objectively has been disproven by constant streams of statistics .I can only assume these talking points are only brought foward all the time because they depend on the classic reality that one lie requires a hundred truths to dismantle it . Also , can you explain to me why Mass Shootings in the United States only started happening as a trend AFTER Gun Control acts like the """Assault Weapon Ban""" of 1994 and not when you could get a Light Machine Gun through the Mail ? . If Firearms being highly regulated leads to low homicide rates , can you explain to me why countries like México and Brazil have such high homicide rates and multiple mass shootings a year (Real ones , not made up ones) despite having strict disarmament policies ? .

@@thinkharder9332 Well, the real issue is that the easy accessibility of guns in general indirectly leads to easy illegal accessibility of guns for criminals, the ones who do jack up the homicide rate with guns. In a country like Japan, their very strict gun control laws (limited only to the military and law enforcement) work very well in cutting down the homicide rate, as even the Yakuza have trouble obtaining large numbers of guns. However, the history of the United States means that Americans in general will never accept needing to give up guns for legal purposes, plus there are a lot more places and wildlife to hunt compared to many smaller countries.

In fairness, the constitution when it was made was intended to apply only against the federal government. It was only after the passage of the 14th amendment and subsequent developments throughout the early 20th century that lead to some federal constitutional rights being 'incorporated' against the states. The courts also decided on 'selective incorporation', whereby only certain things would be incorporated, so for instance grand juries aren't necessary at the state level.

In fairness it makes no sense that the core aspects of the 2nd wouldn't also be incorporated against the states. @@bearmarco1944

​@bearmarco1944 I d9nt quite get why states can violate federal laws and rights in exchange for their own, and at the same time, there are circuit court appeals that implicate multiple states for what is and isn't legal, and then there's the Supreme Court that forces all states to adhere to their rulings. Seems like it's too contradictory

@@ghost8487 Because the constitution of each state is intended to only apply within that state, right? In the same way that Florida's constitution isn't binding on Georgia, the federal government's constitution isn't binding on Illinois because they're different jurisdictions. The constitution exists mainly to organise the federal government and describe how it will work, how the HoR will work, how the presidency will work, etc. The bill of rights were the bargain that *states* demanded the federal government be required fo follow, and they were originally designed to protect states and citizens of states. It was only after the 14th amendment that the bill of rights was thought to apply to the states. This was more because judges wanted to create universal rights and less because it was legally correct, and the constitution's bill of rights gave a lot more authenticity to the rights than 'it's just natural law' or 'it's just commonsense'.

@@bearmarco1944 interesting, my interpretation is that the constitution is the highest law of the land that overarches all forms of government under them. Typically state and local governments are not immune from abiding by the bill of rights

Why are we the only country with this much gun violence then? And where do you think criminals are getting the guns from?

@@scottblubaugh that’s not true. There’s many countries with high levels of gun violence. The US gun deaths statistic is high because we have a lot of suicides that used guns. (Not to say the US has higher suicide rates than other countries, but guns are a popular choice to commit suicide here.) gun suicides account for about 60% of all gun deaths in the US

Of course there's always a lot more to the story. But these RU-vidrs don't care for truth

@44-SWAGNUM-MAGA-X right. The video wasn't too bad but the title is ridiculous.

@@44-SWAGNUM-MAGA-X There is always more to the story, but if the video and the whole story tell a similar tale, then the youtuber did just fine.

​@@rhodeislandfirearmsownersl9916 Go to the Swiss, poland or czech they have lot of gunowners but the most owners arent fools, in the USA are Lot of fools without skills or trigger discipline

I disagree with your conclusion. Even something as simple as applying a decision about a federal law to the states is a big deal.

I'm still waiting for those folks to defend my right to carry ANY ARMS since the 2A is not explicit. The Heller decision was absolutely ridiculous.

@@OneAfricanRace With a federal permit, you can own a fully function tank, cannon included. Surprisingly, though, federal law makes it illegal to own nukes (which is a good thing, but I'm surprised Congress had so much foresight).

Yes he would.

Give it a few days/weeks.

It's coming very soon!

@@iammrbeat OMG... I'm so excited. Thank you, Mr. Beat!

@@alman666 I’m not even American but I got the Bernie Sanders reference 😂

honestly, how is FDR's threat of court packing NOT an illegal attempt to threaten a judge?

You're not American *yet*

Thank you. Come to America!

This makes me happy. :)

I have so much more research to do before I'm ready to take on such huge videos.

That is like thousands of people to review but that'd be cool

Thank you!

welcome to American Politics where the constitution is toilet paper.

They *were* allowing people to own guns. They just couldn't be handguns. They could still own all the rifles and other legal kinds that they wanted. The 2nd Amendment does not specify *which* arms you are allowed to bear, just that you have the right to own guns in general.

⁠@@Compucles”the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” - so any gun control is unconstitutional. This is the same logic as “well the founding fathers would have never imagined AR’s so of course they’re unconstitutional” which is the same as saying “well the founding fathers would have never seen the internet so of course free speech isn’t protected.” It doesn’t specify which guns you can or can’t have, because the idea of distinguishing this is unconstitutional itself.

Banning a large class of firearms that are in common use is definitely unconstitutional. ​@@Compucles

@@camwhiteastro but they do tho. Automatic weapons aren’t legal

Idk how I feel about about the 2nd amendment. Only 2 other countries, Mexico and Guatemala, have a constitutional right to to bear arm.

@hydromic2518 the way I see it, the only way one can guarantee their rights is to be able to own firearms

That's not what that means. As long as you can own at least one kind of gun, your right to guns in general is not being infringed.

@@Compucles Why? And don’t come at me with any musket bullshit. Legally, those aren’t even firearms.

That's honestly a big reason why I made this. :)

@@iammrbeat That’s so cool of you, thanks! Your court videos are really good, to the point where my civics teacher last semester (who actually said he met you in person!) would show your videos in class as a crash course before we delved deeper into them

I do, too. I think that means we're old. lol

Heller v DC is another huge one.

That was a good opinion

if you watch the video you will find out

@@bettermetal8306 Yup. I watched and it's great.

What kind of comment is this 😂 Watch the video first

Rare Thomas W?

Return of the Mac

I'd watch Mark and the Four Boxes Diner channel and Langley Outdoors Academy. Always seek out other viewpoints.

Even though statistically that puts him in greater danger.

@@klauswigsmiththat doesn’t mean bro should be defenseless

​​@@klauswigsmiththat makes 0 sense. He didnt own a handgun and still got put in plenty of danger, screw your "well statistically" nonesense.

@@klauswigsmith Individual circumstances overrule general statistics.

@@klauswigsmith No it doesn't. Stats fail to account for suicidal people who buy and then harm themselves immediately vs lifelong owners.

Hamilton was pro standing army, which the 2nd amendment was written to dissuade. But I'm pretty sure he supported the individual right of arms ownership?

​@@DerWaidmann_ yes. Hamilton wanted a standing army cuz he believed the militias weren't enough against potential threats. He didnt have some vedetta against the right to bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment was a measure to arm the people so that they could form state militias, the purpose has always applied to the states if not the states exclusively

Sadge

@@toooydoeur no - it's just the way it should be for all law abiding citizens - it's perfect.

@@freeman7296 lmao

​@@toooydoeurHe's right.

The 2nd amendment being interpreted as a right for an individual to own a gun has only seriously existed for like the last 50 years

@@17RedKnight presser v Illinois (1886) .. Supreme Court was very clear in this ruling and that was nearly 140 years ago .. don’t be dumb

@@JBoo00 for an individual to own a firearm as a right??? I looked up the presser v Illinois supreme Court ruling and found that it simply says that states are free to have their own rule over the 2nd amendment, not the federal government. And actually the same McDonald case that Mr Beat made this video on overruled that exact case saying it's ultimately up to the federal government to rule on the 2nd amendment, not the states. Read any book on the history of gun laws in the US and you'd see that the idea of any individual having a right to a gun is fairly recent

@@17RedKnight “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government” Maybe read the actual decision and not someone recapping it little boy.

@@JBoo00 I'm arguing about the interpretation of an individual right to own a gun is relatively new. "All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia". "So as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security". "Their duty to the general government". The text you cited from the ruling is more on the traditional interpretation that we had for the first 200 years of our history, that the right to bear arms is more so on having a trained militia ready to be called up for national security. The right for an individual to own a gun just cause they want to is the new interpretation which has only existed for the last 50 years or so