Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us and welcome to Washington Gun Law's new studio. We will shooting a lot of videos from here, a little bit easier without that huge bank of windows behind us. Hey, America. We're going to circle back to the fourth Circuit. We're going to circle back to the matter of Bianchi V Brown, the ruling that came out earlier this week, upholding Marilyn's assault weapon ban. Now, what oftentimes happens when I go through a case like this and I read it once, maybe I'll do a video and then I'll go back and I'll start geeking out on it a little bit more. I'll start really dissecting it and sometimes I will soften my emotional approach to it, but other times, well, it gets a little bit more harsh. I get a little bit more angry, and it's going to be one of those times today on this video, imagine if you would a United States Court of Appeals that basically says in their ruling that criminals and gangsters are entitled to the very firearms that you in fact, are not entitled to.
Don't believe me. Don't believe it can happen here in America. Well, it can. It did, and I will connect the dots using the fourth circuit's own words. So today, let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about why does the Fourth Circuit hate us so much?
Okay? Before we get going too far down the road, we're going down, we tell you here at Washington Gun all the time that we're not going to tell you how to think, but we are going to give you all the stuff to think about. Well, does the news treat you that way? And that's why I've been using ground news because in today's world of media bias and censorship, ground news gives you the freedom to learn for yourself, to attach your own weight to the facts and come to your own conclusion. Wow, what a concept, huh? Here's how it works. You take today's news story, for example. You start searching it out, and now one, you can see who the news source is and what is their political leaning. Two, you can actually learn who owns each news source three, you can see the headline manipulation to see how the story is being distorted, and most importantly, you can see the bias distribution of each story, but there's a lot more and it's all cool.
Take for example, the Blind Spot. I love this feature. Now, it's only fully unlocked if you get a vantage plan, but this allows you to see news stories that are only being covered by one side of the political spectrum. It really helps you understand the other side. Now, here's the best news. If you subscribe today at Ground News slash Washington, you're going to receive 40% off the vantage plan. Listen, it's time for you to break free from media manipulation. It's time for you to be able to make up your own mind. It's time for the news to start treating you like an adult. For more information, visit my good friends at Ground News slash Washington. Okay, America, this is what we're talking about. We're talking about the case of Bianchi v Brown, a fourth circuit, horrific ruling that came out earlier this week upholding Marilyn's assault weapon ban.
Now, we already did this video, and if you want to watch it, please do, but grab a barf bag before you do it. Now, despite the fact that this case was gvr from the United States Supreme Court more than two years ago, the Fourth Circuit just got around to finally doing it screw job on us. I said at the very beginning of this video, could you imagine a United States Court of Appeals that actually issues rulings that says that criminals and gangsters are entitled or should be given access to the very firearms that in fact they're saying you do not have access to? That would almost be like they're rooting for all of us to get killed. Now, I'm not suggesting that's what the Fourth Circuit is doing, but you yourself may draw those conclusions as well. Follow me if you will, as I connect the dots using the very words of the Fourth Circuit opinion in Bianchi v.
Brown. Okay? As you know, the court has said that an assault weapon ban is totally okay because the Second Amendment does not even protect semi-automatic rifles. So think about that. The most common platform of rifle known to man is not protected by the Second Amendment. Specifically, the court ruled for these reasons. We declined to wield the Constitution to declare that military style armor, MITs, which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic process. Okay? So I want you to remember now that the Fourth Circuit believes that we are not entitled to 'em because they're used for mass killings and terrorist attacks. And of course, since the court now decides what's suitable and what's not suitable for self-defense, they have injected a whole new balancing test into the equation. But then you see the court went one further, okay?
Because what the Fourth Circuit actually did was rewrite the entire Second Amendment. Yeah, it's not about the right to keep in bare arms. It's actually about the right for self-defense. And since states have all sorts of limitations on the rules of law as it relates to self-defense, well that means they can put all sorts of limitations on your right to keep and bear arms. This is how the Fourth Circuit ruled. The preexisting right codified by the Second Amendment is thus about simplifying the power of individual citizens to project force greater than they can muster with their own bodies so that they may protect themselves when government cannot limitations on this right to self-defense have been recognized in common law since before our nation's founding one involves the necessity of imminence, okay? So what they're saying is we cannot just allow regular citizens to have access to firearms unless we believe that they are necessary for self-defense followed so far, and since these firearms according to the court are not suitable for self-defense, they are thus excessively dangerous firearms, a whole new term created out of thin air, and since they're excessively dangerous, they can be banned.
But this is how the court ruled on page 21 of the majority opinion, such excessively dangerous arms were not reasonably related or proportional to the end of self-defense, but rather were better suited for offensive criminal or military purposes and were thus understood to fall outside the reach of the right. Okay? I want you to understand that one, the court likens criminal enterprise to military endeavors, which I think is completely unfair and ridiculous, but also says that, Hey, you know what? These firearms are perfectly appropriate for criminal use. They're just not appropriate for you to use to defend yourself. So now the fourth Circuit is saying, Hey, these firearms are not appropriate for you to defend your life. Your life is not that important, but the military and the criminals, well, that's what they're appropriate for. Okay? Then I said there was this incredibly dangerous test where the court could just decide what firearms were suitable for self-defense, which ones weren't, and of course that would allow 'em to ban just about anything under the sun.
Let us remember on page 21 and 22 of the majority opinion, the fourth circuit ruled what brings all the weapons beyond the scope of the Second Amendment together, and what separates them from the handgun is their ability to inflict damage on a scale or in a manner disproportionate to the end of personal protection. As such, they're weapons most suitable for criminal or military use, okay? So their ability to inflict mass carnage, mass damage disproportional to what you believe would be necessary for self-defense is suitable for the military. I think we can agree on that, but also for criminals. So you actually have the fourth circuit saying that, yes, by this ruling we are saying that criminals will be able to outgun lawful responsible American citizens. And so you're sitting there going, wait a second, wait a second. Does the court really honestly suggest that the criminals are entitled to these firearms, but we are not?
Well, I thought it might've been just a poor choice of language until you get to page 23 of the majority opinion, and then you see that the court ruled as follows, the Second Amendment with its central component of individual self-defense is not concerned with ensuring citizens have access to military grade or gangster style weapons. So once again, the court, for whatever reason, is equating military activity with gang activity. But what they are saying is, Hey, we understand why both of them would have these weapons. You are not however entitled to have 'em for self-defense. And let us remember that the fourth circuit also ruled in short then, while the Second Amendment jealously safeguards the right to possess weapons that are most appropriate and typically used for self-defense, it emphatically does not stretch to encompass excessively dangerous weapons ill suited and disproportionate to such a purpose.
Okay? So the Fourth Circuit understands why the criminals, the gangsters, and the thugs would use those weapons, but they're adamant that you are not entitled to such a weapon in self-defense. To go full circle, then, is it possible that in the year 2024, there is a United States Court of Appeals that hates lawful and responsible gun owning Americans so much that they're actually willing to write in the opinion that they know the criminals and the thugs and the gangsters have 'em, but you don't get 'em because they don't believe that your life is worth protecting? Listen, the case once again is Bianchi v Brown. We're going to go ahead and link it up down below so you guys can geek out on it for yourself. Maybe you got more questions about this or something else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights in the fourth Circuit.
That clearly is not much. You should know how to get ahold of Washington gun law by now, but if you don't, that's okay. That information is 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, because some of the best ideas we had weren't our ideas at all. Maybe you just want to be part of our monthly newsletter. The link to subscribe to that is down below in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, America, let's all 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. Until next time, thanks for watching. Stay Safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUAKksddddE
Credit: William Kirk, Esq, Washington Gun Law