Skip to content

TOO CONFUSING FOR JUDGES? Left Pretends Not To Understand Bruen and 2A

A federal judge in Mississippi claims that applying Bruen and the 2nd amendment is too difficult because he is not a historian…

The anti-gunners and their friends on the federal bench are trying to engage in civil disobedience against the nice server versus bruin decision but it’s not going to work for a whole host of reasons nevertheless i’m going to bring to your attention the sorts of nonsense that i’m seeing out there so we can nip it in the bud with why what they’re attempting to do

Simply is not right under the us constitution and beyond today we’re going to talk about a judge in mississippi and obama appointee and his theory about why he’s not capable of applying the second amendment as understood by the u.s supreme court in bruin we’ll talk about this nonsense when we get right back hey folks i’m mark smith host of the four boxes diner

Proud american gun owner constitutional attorney member of the united states supreme court bar and new york times best-selling author if you have not subscribed to the forumox designer second amendment channel please do so and show your love for the right to keep and to bear arms all right folks you’re not going to believe this actually you probably will believe this

But that’s okay i’m flagging it for you so we can nip it in the bud so we have a federal judge in mississippi a judge appointed to the federal bench by president barack obama and what is he saying in dealing with the second amendment and his ability to apply it to modern day controversies involving gun control laws well judge carlton reeves in mississippi wrote an

Order last week which got picked up by among others cnn and what does cnn talk about when it discussed the order from judge reeves well it turns out the judge reeves basically indicated that he doesn’t feel capable or competent enough to apply the second amendment as it was as is to be interpreted properly under the history the text history and the tradition of the

Second amendment which is what the u.s supreme court explained now of course if i will tell you this if an attorney made some of these complaints that i’m going to read to you from judge reeves if he made such a thing to me i might even fire him for gross incompetence but let’s focus specifically on what judge reeves says and then i’m going to point out to you why

It’s just an absurd statement and i can’t believe he actually wrote this in a court order so judge reeves specifically said in an opinion dealing with a uh i believe this is a felon in possession law so basically just step back for a second let’s remind ourselves that justice clarence thomas and nyserpa versus ruin pointed out that the only way a modern day gun

Control law can stand scrutiny under the second amendment is if there is a historical analog back in 1791 consistent with the modern-day gun control law now historical analogy it has to be it has is used specifically to demonstrate that the modern day gun control law being discussed is quote consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation

Can’t be an outlier it can’t be a needle in the haystack it has to be can consistent with the history and tradition of regulating firearms in the america based in 1791. now judge reeves reading this and reading my server versus bruin basically threw up his hands apparently and said oh my god i can’t figure this out this is too hard that’s my interpretation of

What he’s saying here because this is what he says quote this court is not a trained historian close quote okay well vaccine that’s not even true but we’re gonna get to that in a second what else does judge reeves say he says the justices quote the justices of the supreme court as distinguished as they may be are not trained historians okay that’s not even true

But we’re gonna get to that in a second and judge reese should know better do you know why judge risa know better because when he became a federal judge he put up his hand and he swore presumably on a bible but he swore on something that he was going to uphold among other things american law and specifically he was going to uphold the united states constitution

That very same document including the second amendment right to keep him bear arms so he already took an oath that he was going to abide by and follow and read it and apply it to be a federal judge in america and yet now after he’s been a judge he now somehow feigns ignorance that he doesn’t know how all this stuff works of course we know that’s simply not true

Let me tell you why okay it’s not that hard judges and courts what is their job okay if you’re a plumber you keep the you know you keep the pipes working in homes and buildings that’s your job if you’re an electrician you keep the electricity running if you’re a doctor you keep people alive through the practice of medicine what does a judge do i’ll tell you what

A judge does their job is to apply the law going back to the three branches of government congress passes the law and acts the law the president executes the law and forces the law and the courts interpret the law your job as a federal judge as any judge in fact is to interpret the law by applying the law interpreting the law and applying it it’s your job now our

Laws are reflected on in the constitution and on statute books many of these books are quite out i mean the united states constitution is over 200 years old so it’s an old document but your job is to abide by it and to interpret it it’s your job as a judge okay and unless that constitution has been amended or repealed or something you got to follow it you got to

Interpret it and the way to interpret the course is you look at the text you read the constitution the step one and beyond that you can look at the history associate of the constitution to understand what the party is intended to do now this is not like a super secret unusual process for judges because even when judges interpret let’s say contracts between you

And your plumber or between your partner what does the judge do they read the contract that was written usually many many years earlier and they say what does the contract mean what does the text of the contract mean and what do the parties intend same thing with the constitution what do the constitution say as written the text and what did the parties meaning

The founding fathers mean when they adopted it very basic job of the judge nothing complicated here now let’s go on to say that we need to interpret the constitution any kind of old text right used history this does not require require any special expertise outside of the practice of law or being a judge let’s look and i just pulled this up quickly okay i just

Pulled this up quickly now i know the reality is judge reese probably doesn’t like the second amendment is my guess and he certainly doesn’t like the second amendment written the way it was written as interpreted by the u.s supreme court in bruin because it’s very hard for modern day gun control laws to stay on the books because they’re unconstitutional value

Rights he probably doesn’t like that outcome and because he doesn’t like the outcome he’s upset that he has to follow and process that’s going to give rise to an outcome he doesn’t like which is to strike down a bunch of illegal unconstitutional gun laws but i would digress let’s look at what the u.s supreme court without trained historians right they didn’t hire

Trained historians they interpreted the law and they looked at the history this is what the u.s supreme court judges just like judge reeves have done in the past right we know that if when they interpreted the second amendment the heller case in 2008 do you know how many pages of history pages of history in the heller decision there were over 60 six zero pages of

History in the hillary decision alone there were dozens and dozens of pages of history in nyserpa versus bruin the supreme court certainly seemed capable and comfortable with using history to interpret the meaning of the right to keep in their arms because they use literally dozens and dozens and dozens of pages to do so but this is not unusual it’s not specific or

Unique to the second amendment let’s talk about some of those other aspects of the bill of rights we know and this is just my quick back of the napkin stuff right i’m sure there’s a lot more out there you probably write massive amounts of scholarship on what i’m about to say but i’m just going to give you a taste 1947 the united states supreme court decided a case

Called everson versus board of education in that 1947 case they spent nine pages discussing the history and the meaning of the first amendment’s establishment clause which says you can’t establish a religion a national religion in america okay in 1940 1940 in cantonville versus connecticut the u.s supreme court spent eight pages analyzing the first amendment’s free

Exercise clause including the history in weeks versus the united states the fourth amendment talked about 10 pages with a little bit of historical review miranda versus arizona talked a little bit about history so there’s plenty of examples of historical analysis out there when you interpret the bill of rights because again the way to understand any document is you

Read the text and then you try to understand what the parties meant when they adopted it and who are the parties that adopted the bill of rights and the constitution including the second amendment that’s the founding father so you’re looking at the history of what they intended makes a lot of sense which is why every single law student in america reads for example

The federalist papers and often the anti-federalist papers the historical documents that go along with what was the purpose of the united states constitution this is what judges do the fact that judge reeves is pretending not to understand this to me again is simply nonsense and an excuse to engage in civil disobedience to try to ignore the second amendment and

Applied in modern day life now now beyond this of course it’s very interesting that that judge reeves feels the need to take this position uh as opposed to the other ways that the anti-gunners wanted to interpret the second amendment so judge reeves has taken the position that he’s not capable of reading the text of the second amendment and applying the historical

Standard that you do for every other aspect of the bill of rights because he says he’s not a historian but he is a lawyer and judge that applies historical documents and reads them all the time in contrast what’s interesting about the anti-gunners and i don’t know if judge reese specifically is an anti-gunner but i’m i’m guessing i know but i don’t know for a fact

Here’s what’s interesting isn’t it interesting that the anti-gunners across america want to judge us whose job it is to interpret old text to instead interpret the second amendment by engaging in cost-benefit analysis tears of scrutiny balancing tests where they would balance the statistical benefits of gun ownership against the statistical benefits of so-called

Gun laws gun control laws so here you have a judge that says he’s not capable of applying history of the second amendment which judges you every day but in contrast the anti-gun community wanted judges who have mostly no experience when it comes to numbers with empirical data with statistics with any kind of math right many of them are terrible at math which is why

They went to law school so somehow it’s perfectly fine for judges to balance away our rights which they’ve been doing for over a decade with tears of scrutiny which again is really just balancing the good and the bad of guns using statisticians and empirical research which courts and judges are a hundred percent worse at than interpreting history in fact the united

States supreme court in brune specifically made this observation that courts are much more comfortable with interpreting odor text and the history associated with older texas their job in contrast with trying to become experts in the world of statistics and interpreting the second amendment with a statistical view or mathematical view about the good and the bad of

Gun ownership so the supreme court specifically addresses so if you think judges are bad historians well they’re even worse at stat statistics and econometric analysis and the like but beyond that there’s even even some other crazy anti-gun theories out there one of which is called corpus linguistics which we’ll talk about later you’ve never even heard of corpus

Linguistics and you’re lucky because of that but basically corpus linguistics is a fancy latin phrase for taking a corpus which is the body of words which is linguistics right corpus’s body um and linguistics is words and basically taking a body of words and doing a word search to come up with a bunch of words to help you interpret among other things the second

Amendment now i’ve debunked corpus linguistics in a major article in a library which we’ll talk about in another video but all you need to know for the purposes here is the anti-gun community was interested in using corpus linguistics to reinterpret the second amendment in a way that was very very bad for your rights that’s what you need to know and i can assure

You that the understanding of corpus linguistics which is a very esoteric you know crazy kind of academic theory out there judges are far more familiar with interpreting history and the text of a document like the constitution than they are in the detailed so-called scientific or not scientific can debate that proposition analysis and data collection involving with

Corpus linguistics which again in my view was a way for the anti-gunners to try to read out the right to keep and bear arms so to close the bottom line is this this is another example of a judge in america that’s upset i presume with the nicer versus bruin decision he is looking for a way to get around it he has raised the prospect of hiring historians appointed

By the court to help him interpret uh the u.s constitution and let me be clear if you are a federal judge that swore an oath to uphold the united states constitution and now you tell us that you’re not capable of applying the constitution as it was written and as the history books teach you was what it was supposed to mean and how to apply it then you should resign

And get yourself off the federal bench because you’re not capable of doing your job and my last point here is i want to note that history is mission critical to the entire american legal system for two main reasons the first is we in the ankle sphere meaning we are in the united states and the english common law all embrace a body of law called common law common

Law is distinguished from civil law which is really more of a french system where everything is written down verbatim and you follow what’s written in civil law but common law is you know cases get decided and then you look back at older cases as precedent and then you apply those precedents in modern day cases so the entire american legal system is basically

Based on this notion of common law with judges looking back in time at prior cases defining those as precedence and applying those old precedence today a in modern day controversies which is exactly what the u.s supreme court is asking courts to do on the second amendment context is to look at you know 1791 precedents and laws to help interpret the mean in the

Second amendment so if you are not capable of looking back in time and analyzing precedence and applying it today you’re really not capable of being a judge as i see it because our entire american system is based on the common law notion of you know following old ancient precedents and if you’re not capable of going back in time and applying old prestons today

Then again you can’t be a judge in america as i see it and last but not least keep in mind you have such a thing called legislative history did you hear that word judge reeves history legislative history is the history that goes into statutes that are enacted the legislation that’s enacted by congress the legislation that’s enacted by the legislature have listened

To commonwealth of massachusetts well the history associated with that legislation is guess what history history so if you’re not capable of understanding the history associated with like the second amendment and presumably you’re also not capable of understanding the history associated with let’s say a statute enacted by congress or a statute enacted by the

Commonwealth of massachusetts again probably not a good sign for your future as a judge and your ability to do your job that’s just my opinion okay i hope you learned a little bit something i know this is a little bit of a geeky topic today but an important one because we’re going to keep our keep our eyes on where judges and other people and uh that don’t seem on

Board with the plan the second amendment is written see where they’re going and try to nip any of these uh nonsense kind of arguments and theories in the bud that’s what we hope to do here at the four boxes china so again hope you learned something uh if you haven’t subscribed please do so we’ll see you again soon here at the four boxes diner orders up table 2a

Transcribed from video
TOO CONFUSING FOR JUDGES? Left Pretends Not To Understand Bruen and 2A… By The Four Boxes Diner