Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 20, 2023 - Epoch Times

13:59

Supreme Court Ruling Suddenly Countered

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening, and right before we dive into the story, I'll quickly mention that if you are just sick and tired of all the censorship on this platform, as well as all the other platforms out there, and if you're looking for a source of actual honest news, well, you're in luck, because you can check out the Epoch Times.
	This month, we've extended our awesome sale and subscriptions, just 25 cents a week for the whole year, which, if you do the math, works itself out to just be a single dollar a month.
	And so, if you'd like an honest source of news, news that almost always gets completely blacked out by the legacy news outlets, well, consider trying a subscription for yourself.
	I'll throw a link.
	It'll be right there at the top of the description box below.
	I hope you check it out.
	Now, diving into the main topic, four days ago, there was a major development in the ongoing battle over the Second Amendment with a federal court ruling against a woman who was trying to restore her Second Amendment rights.
	And the details of this particular case, they reveal an underlying battle that's being waged right now in courtrooms across the whole country, wherein you have American citizens using a Supreme Court decision which came down just last year to try and claw back the gun rights that have been stripped away from us over the past 100 years.
	However, in order to explain what happened in this particular case, as well as what it means for the country going forward, let's back up for a quick moment and start at the very beginning.
	Of course, right after you take a super quick moment to smash those like and subscribe buttons, which will quite literally force the YouTube algorithm to share this video and this content out to ever more people.
	Now, to start with, the U.S. Supreme Court decision which started all this was the famous Bruin case, which, for your reference, was the first gun rights-related case to be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court in well over a decade.
	Let me give you a brief refresher on what that particular case was all about.
	You see, up until last year, up until the year 2022, if you were a resident of New York, it was almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit.
	That's because the state of New York has been, for the past 111 years, been forcing people to prove that they had a quote-unquote special need for self-protection.
	The relevant statute in New York was the Sullivan Act of 1911.
	And that particular law, it made it such that concealed carry permits can be issued at the sole discretion of local law enforcement.
	And in order for a citizen to obtain one of these concealed carry permits, he or she must, quote, demonstrate a special need for self-protection, distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.
	Meaning, in practical terms, that for the past 111 years, only if the local police agreed that you had a special need for self-protection, would they give you a license to conceal carry your gun outside the home.
	And proving that you had a special need wasn't easy.
	It didn't matter whether you lived in a high-crime area, and it didn't matter if you got robbed multiple times before.
	Unless you were an actual celebrity, or you were a security guard, you were just out of luck.
	It was nearly impossible to get a concealed carry permit.
	Now eventually, in the year 2018, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association They filed a lawsuit against the superintendent of the New York State Police Force, arguing that the gun laws that were on the books for the past 111 years were actually all along unconstitutional.
	And after several years of legal back and forth, the case finally wound up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the conservative majority on the court, they ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, specifically.
	Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, they all ruled that New York's law was indeed unconstitutional and that the ability of a person to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment.
	Furthermore, in the opinion statement that was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, there was a sentence which opened the door for other gun-restricting laws across the nation to be rolled back.
	Here's specifically what Justice Clarence Thomas wrote as a part of the Court's majority opinion.
	The burden falls on the defendants, meaning the government, to show that New York's proper cause requirement is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
	Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.
	With these principles in mind, the court concludes that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York's proper cause requirement.
	And so, with this opinion statement, Justice Clarence Thomas established a new legal precedent.
	Moving forward, federal, state and local governments will have to prove in court that their restrictive gun laws are, quote, consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
	And so, with this decision, as well as with this new legal standard that was established by the U.S. Supreme Court, well, the door was flung open for Americans to begin challenging restrictive gun laws across the whole country in the hope of having them overturned, no matter how old they were.
	And indeed, that's exactly what happened.
	Lawsuits began to spring up across the whole nation, which brings us neatly along to the case of Miss Melinda Vincent.
	You see, Melinda is a woman out in the state of Utah who is a social worker currently running her own clinic.
	She's also a single mother who wants to own a gun in order to protect her family.
	That's all well and good.
	Very typical American story.
	Except there's a catch.
	15 years ago, Melinda pleaded guilty to a felony charge of check fraud.
	Here's what happened back in the year 2008 amidst the backdrop of the global financial crisis.
	Quote, Melinda Vincent wrote a fraudulent check for $498.12 at a grocery store in 2008 when she was homeless and fighting off a drug addiction.
	She faced up to 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.
	But she pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation without imprisonment.
	And so, essentially, Melinda wrote a bad check 15 years ago, and because of that, to this very day, she can no longer own a gun, despite the fact that she has turned her life around.
	She's now a small business owner.
	Because she still is technically a convicted felon, she is unable to own a gun ever, as per a 1961 federal law.
	And as such, Melinda filed a lawsuit against the federal government back in the year 2020, arguing that the prohibition against her was unconstitutional.
	However, after bouncing around the court for about a year, in October of 2021, a federal judge dismissed the case.
	But then, the next year, in 2022, you had the landmark Bruin decision at the U.S. Supreme Court, which, as we just explained earlier, turned on its head the Second Amendment legal discussion in this country.
	Because after the Bruin decision, the onus was no longer on the individual, but rather, it was the government's job to prove that they have a long-standing historical president to take away someone's gun rights.
	And so, Melinda used this new standard in her appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which, just for reference, has jurisdiction over the states of Colorado, Kansas, Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
	Essentially, in her appeal...
	Melinda was arguing that it was unconstitutional to bar her, a convicted felon of a nonviolent crime, from ever owning a gun because there was no long-standing historical precedent for such a thing.
	In her appeal brief, Ms.
	Vincent detailed that for much of U.S. history, forgers simply had to pay back the amount stolen in double.
	Some states added on hard labor or solitary imprisonment as punishment.
	Most aggressively, Delaware gave forgers a public whipping of 39 lashes, plus an hour in the pillory, and then finally cut off the soft parts of their ears.
	But none of the original colonies deprived forgers of firearms.
	But the details here get a lot deeper, which we'll get into right after I introduce the sponsor of today's episode by showing you this little piece of money.
	Or rather, I should say that this is fake money being printed into oblivion by those geniuses over in Washington, D.C. And so before they completely obliterate your life savings, what I recommend you do is to convert that fake money into real money, which is physical gold and silver.
	And the best company to use is the sponsor of today's episode, American Hartford Gold, who also happens to be my own personal gold and silver bullion dealer.
	They have thousands of other five-star ratings across the country.
	They have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
	They ship quickly directly to your doorstep.
	Their product listings are awesome.
	They're stacked with great options of gold and silver bullion and coins.
	And they have amazing customer service.
	When you pick up the phone and call them, You feel good knowing you support a company that supports the truth getting out into the wider American audience.
	And so, calling them up is a no-brainer.
	But best of all, if you tell them that Roman sent you, they will throw in up to $5,000 worth of free silver with your first purchase.
	It's 866-242-2352.
	Or you can simply text the word Roman, R-O-M-A-N, Roman, to 6551.
	At its essence, Melinda's argument here was that the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruin decision shifted the burden of proof over to the government such that it was now the government's burden to show why exactly she was still deprived of her Second Amendment rights.
	And they had to do so by showing a clear historical precedent for such a thing, which she argues doesn't exist.
	In fact, here was what Melinda's lawyer said during arguments.
	Quote, Quote, Quote, Bruin set forth a test, and that's the test that needs to govern this case.
	On the flip side, though, you had the lawyer representing the federal government argue that in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court did uphold laws which banned felons from owning guns, and also that the recent Supreme Court Bruin ruling doesn't change all that.
	Here's a quote from the government's lawyer during arguments.
	And after about another year of legal back and forth, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, they ruled against Ms.
	Melinda.
	They said that while the Bruin decision did create a new standard for the country, it did not specifically overturn the prohibition of felons from owning guns.
	The majority of the opinion of the court, it was joined by Justices Joel Carson, appointed to the bench by President Trump, Judge Paul Kelly Jr., appointed by George H.W. Bush, as well as Judge Robert Baccarat, appointed by President Obama.
	And here's what these judges wrote in the majority opinion.
	The Bruin decision created a new test for determining the scope of the Second Amendment, but it didn't appear to question the constitutionality of long-standing prohibitions on possession of firearms by convicted felons.
	Then, going into a bit more detail, the appeals court wrote in their opinion statement that the Bruin decision actually affirmed the constitutionality of denying firearms to felons.
	Quote, The Bruin case apparently approved the constitutionality of regulations requiring criminal background checks before applicants could get gun permits.
	In Bruin, the court struck down state regulations that had required the showing of a special need before someone could get a license to carry a gun.
	In preserving shall-issue regimes and related background checks, the court arguably implied that it was constitutional to deny firearm licenses to individuals with felony convictions.
	We conclude that Bruin did not indisputably and pellucidly abrogate our presidential opinion.
	Meaning, in plain English, that in the opinion of the appeals court, while the Bruin decision did create a new legal standard, it didn't negate the federal ban that's been in place since 1961, which prohibits felons from owning firearms.
	In short, the appeals court ruled that gun bans for non-violent felons were indeed constitutional.
	However, one of the judges on the bench, Judge Robert Backerick, he joined the majority decision against Melinda, but he also wrote a separate opinion wherein he said that he believes the U.S. Supreme Court should come out and they should provide a clear standard on whether felons have the right to possess a gun or not.
	In the separate opinion, he wrote that, quote, And that might be exactly what happens, because Ms.
	Melinda Vincent, after having gone through the entire lower court system, she can now appeal her case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Who will now be given a chance to clarify whether nonviolent felons like Melinda, whose only crime was writing a $500 bad check 15 years ago, should indeed be prohibited from owning a gun for the rest of her life.
	Now, at the moment, it hasn't been announced whether Ms.
	Melinda will appeal her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and as soon as she decides one way or the other, I'll give you that update.
	Until then, if you'd like to go through the details of this particular case in greater detail, I'll throw the links to everything that we discussed in today's episode.
	They'll all be down there in the description box below this video for you to peruse at your own leisure.
	And also, I'd love to know your thoughts.
	Is the 1961 federal law, which prohibits non-violent felons from owning a gun, constitutional, irrespective of what the appeals court said?
	Do you think it makes sense?
	Or do you perhaps think that every gun law on the books is an infringement of the U.S. Constitution?
	I'd love to know your thoughts.
	Please leave them in the comments section below.
	I'll be reading them later tonight as well as well into the week.
	And then lastly, if you are, just as I mentioned at the top of the episode, just sick and tired of all the censorship on this platform, with or without the federal government's involvement, well, you're in luck.
	Because as I alluded to earlier...
	The Epoch Times has recently extended its awesome sale on subscriptions, just 25 cents a week for the entirety of the year, which, if you do the math, works itself out to just be a single dollar a month.
	And so if you've been on the fence about subscribing, maybe you're not sure whether you're ready, but you're definitely sure that you're looking for a source of honest news, well, perhaps take the sale as an opportunity to try the Epoch Times for yourself.
	That way you can get access to everything.
	All the phenomenal documentaries, the videos, the movies, the infographics, the deep analysis, the articles, the great newsletters.
	And also, I myself publish anywhere between one to three exclusive episodes of Facts Matter over on Epic TV.
	And so if you'd like to watch some extra episodes of our show, including a huge backlog from the last two or three years, well, you can find it all over on the website.
	I'll throw a link to the sale page.
	It'll be right there at the top of the description box below.
	You can just click on that link and try the Epic Times yourself.
	Again, just a single dollar a month.
	You can, of course, cancel any time, but I'm sure that you won't.
	I'm sure that you'll love it and be a subscriber for a long, long time to come.
	Again, that link is right there at the top of the description box below.
	I hope you check it out.
	And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epic Times.
	Stay informed.

▲