The Supreme Court & Ending the Second Amendment.

a few weeks ago joe biden told us our

second amendment right to bear arms is

not absolute second amendment like all

other rights is not absolute this isn't

about taking to anyone's rights

it's about protecting children

it's about protecting families

it's about protecting whole communities

and last week in a 6-3 decision the

supreme court just struck down new york

strict gun limits on carrying concealed

weapons in new york a case wherein the

court said citizens may quote not be

required to explain to the government

why they sought their right to exercise

a constitutional right in fact justice

alito goes as far as saying quote will a

person hell-bent on carrying a mass

shooting be stopped if he knows that it

is illegal to carry a handgun outside

the home so what do restrictive gun laws

do other than restrict law-abiding gun

owners and this is where gun groups say

quote the burden is on the government to

justify restrictions not on the

individual to justify to the government

and need to exercise their rights and

these rulings are sure to carry some

very important implications for what

rights we have to carry guns the loudest

response of course comes from those on

one side who argue that the right to

bear arms shall not be infringed and

therefore joe biden is completely wrong

to say that the second amendment is not

absolute and of course the loud folks on

the other side who say we should just

have no guns so what's likely to happen

after these supreme court decisions and

what kind of precedent has the supreme

court given us have they given us any

insights into how absolute the second

amendment actually is is joe biden

trying to take our guns away and has the

supreme court given us any answers here

well let's get to some of the facts and

some answers because there are some and

they're quite interesting especially now

that we've got a pretty split court that

leans quite well

to the conservative and republican

majority of six three so the first time

the supreme court provided us a deep

dive into the second amendment was

actually during the 2008 case of the

district of columbia versus heller this

case arose from lawsuits against the

washington city council firearms control

regulations act of 1975 which banned

residents from even owning handguns and

weapons in their own homes the court

ultimately decided that the second

amendment was quote guarant a guarantee

to the individual the right to possess

and carry weapons in the case of

confrontation and further elevated that

the second amendment quote gives us the

right of law-abiding citizens to use

arms in the defense of hearth and home

and thus the supreme court overturned

the washington dc handgun ban but what

the case also did was provide us some

color on the supreme court's

interpretation of the second amendment

the supreme court argues that you can

become disqualified from your right to

bear arms such as in the case of felons

or the mentally ill and that should not

be misconstrued in any way but the

supreme court also makes it clear that

the rights of the second amendment are

not

unlimited

even though they say you have the right

to arms you don't have the right to all

arms for example you have the right to

own a shotgun but not the right to own a

shoulder-mounted missile system or

weapons of mass destruction this is

obviously an extreme example but the

point is clear the right to bear arms

does not mean the right to bear all arms

and the right of all people to bear any

arms so what kind of arms do we have the

right to own well the supreme court here

argues that weapons are protected by the

second amendment if there are weapons

that are quote in common use at the time

this is a doctrine that arose from the

case of united states v miller a 1939

case that decided that weapons protected

by the second amendment should have a

reasonable relation to a well-regulated

militia remember a militia is a citizen

body that organizes to help a military

in the event of need this is important

because a militia would be made up of

citizens and the weapons that would be

typically found in their home a handgun

after all is typically found in the home

therefore it is deemed to be protected

by the second amendment as a result as

we saw in the heller decision the

supreme court added a note that it may

in the future find that machine guns

like the m16 rifle may be a weapon

that's primarily used in the military or

maybe it could be argued that because it

was primarily used in the military

especially in world war ii and many

folks were allowed to bring them home

that maybe it could be argued that hey

we actually have a lot of these

military-style weapons in the home and

therefore maybe civilian use of an ar-15

might actually be deemed common

thanks to the release of so many of

these weapons after world war ii of

course many will also argue the opposite

that an ar-15 is a weapon that is not

commonly found in someone's home no i

want to be very clear here the supreme

court did not say that they're open to

banning or allowing ar-15s however they

do make a very clear note that in the

future even though now in that heller

decision they were talking about

handguns that in the future they could

end up having to make a decision on or

ars for example uh whether it's an ar-15

or whatever deemed to be a common weapon

in our homes one such that a militia or

group of individual civilians coming out

of their homes would go to a militia or

call for a militia with an ar15 it's a

very interesting argument that we'll

certainly see play out my guesses within

the next few years

now some folks like robert cottrell a

professor at george washington

university law school says that assault

weapons do qualify because these

semi-automatic rifles like the m1

carbine were used not only in world war

ii and only were people sent home with

them but they were also literally sold

by the army to the public

after the war there was just so many of

them and so obviously those guns are in

existence in homes now either way the

supreme court is clear here the second

amendment does not give the united

states

as a regulator a blank check but it also

does not give civilians the blank check

to buy any arm that they want

there's a balance and they would expect

a debate to be framed around what

weapons are commonly found in the home

and if they're commonly found in the

home the second amendment protects us if

they're not commonly found in the home

then the second amendment does not

protect us but the pretext for the

debate has now been noted by the supreme

court so is your constitutional right to

bear arms absolute and limitless well

according to the supreme court no it's

not the right to bear arms is not

absolute and it does have limitations so

this does actually mean that when joe

biden says your constitutional rights

are not absolute second amendment like

all other rights is not absolute he's

correct based on even what the supreme

court themselves says

now when someone like tucker carlson

says that joe biden is trying to take

away our guns so this isn't an attempt

to stop school shootings it's not an

attempt to make this a safer country

this is exactly what it looks like the

beginning of a plan to confiscate and

criminalize firearms in the hands of the

law-abiding in this country i have to

take issue with this because that isn't

what joe biden is doing he's not trying

to take away our guns now of course

tucker carlson had an entire segment on

how hey if you have a limitation

on the type of ammunition that you could

put into a handgun for example you could

put only a 10 round magazine into a

handgun that's designed for 15 well then

it might not fit because it'd be too

small but of course saving lives is not

the point of this disarming you is the

point florida congressman greg stooby

tried to explain that at a hearing today

of the house judiciary committee watch

how this unfolded

here's a gun i carry every single day to

protect myself my family my wife my home

comes with a 15 round magazine here's a

seven round magazine which would be less

than what would be lawful under this

bill if this bill were to come off it

doesn't fit so this gun would be banned

i hope no the gun is not loaded

i'm at my house i can do whatever i want

with my guns

obviously this is where the solution is

not effectively banning guns as tucker

carlson says it's simply purchasing

magazines or qualifying under

grandfathering in-laws that are

compatible with the weapon that you have

for example a glock 22 a glock 19

whatever in california has magazines

that are sized for it even though they

can hold up to 18 to 22 rounds in some

cases in california they have magazines

that perfectly fit that are 10 rounds

that's not to say i'm a proponent of

what california is doing or i'm a

proponent of magazine limitations but

the reality is having magazine

limitations don't ban guns they just put

cost burdens on people to go buy

different magazines assuming there's no

grandfathering in-law which of course

there was even in california even in

california high-capacity magazines had

the opportunity for being grandfathered

in either way that's sort of a sidebar

on high-capacity magazines and sort of a

response to tucker carlson video where

he suggests hey you know biden's trying

to take away all of our guns that's a

really popular thing to say especially

since it's really popular make fun of

biden right now who only has a 30

approval rating but it's also very

fascinating to think about the precedent

that the supreme court is going to have

to deal with over the next few years

when soon i expect the second amendment

is going to be on the supreme court's

docket again let me know what you think

in the comments down below personally i

believe that law abiding citizens should

have the right to inexpensively sign up

for concealed carry licenses through

their gun stores or whatever and after a

basic competence and mental health

screening should have the right to carry

i'm a big fan of that but i'd like to

see what both sides have to say in the

comments down below and we'll certainly

see what the supreme court says in the

future