Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Where am I? Well, you know where I'm at. I'm at North Idaho Arms right here in beautiful post Falls, Idaho, visiting my good friend Bezy during the holiday weekend during a little freedom here in North Idaho. Speaking of places that lack freedom, we're going to talk about the District of Columbia today because although they're not a state, if they were, they would rank right up there with the state of California when it comes to absolutely hating on the inalienable rights of their citizens. Don't believe me, we're going to talk about an assault weapon ban that's been in existence in the District of Columbia for quite some time. It's going to be re-challenged and there's a very unique twist here because the court may have previously painted themselves into a little bit of a corner. It creates an argument that we haven't really seen in any of these other cases. So today from North Idaho Arms here in post falls, let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about the new assault weapon ban case with the most interesting of arguments.
Okay, before we get going too far down the road, we're going down proud to announce that this video is being brought to you by Right to Bear. That's right. Legal protection for self-protection. Listen, good lawyers aren't cheap. Cheap lawyers aren't good. You're not truly prepared unless you have right to bear back. You, you will always get an attorney answered hotline, so you will always have a confidential phone call. There are no cap limits for either civil or criminal defense. This covers all forms of self-defense. So from a fist to a firearm, from a fat lip to a dead body, you are covered and you'll have some of the nation's most Passionate two A attorneys in your corner fighting for you. And right now, if you visit my friends@protectwithbear.com and you use the promo code wgl, you'll receive 10% off. Listen, you need to protect yourself so that you can protect them.
Visit my Good friends@protectwithbear.com. Okay, America, this is what we're talking about today. We are talking about the case of Clement versus District of Columbia. It is a case that is filed in the United States District Court for of course the District of Columbia. It is a challenge to the District of Columbia's assault weapon ban. I know some of you're freaking out. I should not be using that terminology, but that is how the statute defines it, and the statute at play here is really not unique to the District of Columbia. It's the same statutes that we see in California and Illinois and Washington and all the other states that have banned these things where they are banning firearms not only based upon their make and model, but they're also banning firearms based upon the features that are consistent with the firearm in which then of course encompasses a lot more than just semi-automatic rifles, several pistols and tactical shotguns are also encapsulated into this.
Okay, so as I mentioned earlier, this law has been in existence for quite some time. District of Columbia was one of the earlier jurisdictions to ban these scary assault weapons, and so this was already subject to one constitutional challenge in the matter of District of Columbia v Heller. You're saying, well, wait a second, wait a second. I thought that dealt with a ban on semi-automatic handguns. That's right. I'm not talking about the Heller case that we normally talk about. I'm talking about the Heller case in which the Heller party was unsuccessful at what we're going to call Heller two. You see, because here's the interesting rub Heller two, which found that District of Columbia's assault weapon ban was constitutional, also made a finding that the Second Amendment was actually implicated by this ban. Why is that important? We'll get to that in just a second.
What they were relied upon, of course, was the old two part balancing test. The balancing test, which has now been thrown to the trash bins of history through the Bruin opinion. But as you recall, the old two-part balancing test would acknowledge that there may be an infringement of an individual, right? But if the societal need that was benefited by that infringement outweighed the infringement to the individual, a court could still find that ban constitutional, which is exactly how all of these courts placed the thumb on the scale for all of these gun controlled legislations for the last number of decades. But you see, when you take a look at what's happened with courts that have had to address assault weapon bans, post Bruin, such as the Seventh Circuit, what have they actually ruled? What has been the escape hatch that they've created in order to work around the mandates of Bruin and Heller and the Second Amendment to uphold assault weapon bans?
Well, what they've said is, is that assault weapons, semi-automatic rifles, as we like to call 'em, are actually not protected by the Second Amendment, that those arms are actually not covered by the Second Amendment. However, let us remember that the District of Columbia in this case has previously ruled that the Second Amendment actually applies to this case. As a matter of fact, the District of Columbia as previous ruling on this issue, specifically stated as it related to the ban on assault weapons. In short, the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons as likely to promote the government's interest and crime control in the densely populated urban area. That is the District of Columbia. Now, the plaintiffs in this case go through a couple of pages, which I'm not sure was necessary here, but be that as it may, that explains the usefulness of these particular weapon platforms for self-defense.
But ultimately they do bring the court back to the heart of the matter, which is listen, if the Second Amendment is what's at play here because you already previously announced that in your previous ruling, then what's also in play here is the common use test. And as the plaintiffs put it, the very enumeration of the right to keep and bear arms takes out of the hands of government, even the third branch of government, the power to decide on a case by case basis, whether the right is really worth insisting upon constitutional rights are enshrined within the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted him. Whether or not future legislators or yes, even future judges think the scope is too broad. For this reason, just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communication and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
That's right. The firearms are in fact in common use because the only historical tradition we have as a nation is banning firearms, which are deemed both dangerous and unusual. And when you're talking about the most modern sporting rifle in circulation today, there is certainly nothing unusual about it as the plaintiffs put it. The firearms at issue in this case are the sorts of bearable arms and common use for lawful purposes that law abiding people possess at home by the millions. According to Justice Soor, semi-automatic rifles like AR fifteens are commonly available. Don't you just love it when they use the wording of the other side and they are moreover exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty should such be necessary In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
And ultimately, one of the arguments that the plaintiffs rely on here is, listen, this court has already said the semi-automatic handgun is constitutionally protected. Therefore, why would the semi-automatic long gunn not be constitutionally protected? Okay, so the remedy that they're asking for is obviously an injunction on the law, a declaratory judgment and a finding that the District of Columbia citizens have been deprived constitutional rights under the color of state law as announced in 42 United States Code Section 1983. Listen, I think this is a fascinating case because in this instant, this court has previously painted itself into a corner that if they stay in that corner, they're going to have to rule contrary to their previous findings. It's going to be very, very interesting to see how this politically motivated court wiggles their way out of it. The case once again is Clement Door, district of Columbia.
It is brought to us by our good friends at the Firearms Policy Coalition, so we're going to link up the complaint down below so that you can geek out on it. We're also going to link up links down below for the Firearms Policy Coalition so that you can show them some love. Maybe you got questions about this or something else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights. If you guys do, you should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now, but if you don't, that's okay. That information's down there in the description box. Maybe you got an idea for a video we should be doing here. If you do, go ahead and click on that link right there. Some of the best ideas we ever had, candidly weren't our ideas to begin with. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself from North Idaho. Arms here in Post falls, Idaho. Thanks for watching. Stay safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ocI8lSJjsY