GOODBYE FIN GRIPS!!! Rupp v. Becerra Arguments

so that was a very interesting oral argument that we had in rugby becerra let's talk about this but real quick before we join this video if you think that there is no such thing as an assault weapon go ahead and hit that like button and subscribe so today october 8th 2020 we had oral arguments in the rupt v basera case and if you're not familiar with what all rup vivacere entails you can click this tab right there and it'll take you to another video that i did where i talked about rupp v buser but essentially ruffy bacera is a challenge to california's assault weapons control act and california's assault weapons control act has multiple parts in it and it did multiple things because it kind of progressed over years originally california's assault weapons control act was a prohibition on specific makes and models of specific firearms and rifles and then it evolved over time to include what we know today as the general bans on what california considers assault weapons mainly being semi-automatic certain fire rifles that are configured in specific ways to where then california considers them to be assault weapons so that is what roughly because all about is a challenge to california's assault weapons control act and so this case has made its way all the way up to the ninth circuit and now today we had oral arguments by a ninth circuit panel and it was made up of two uh trump nominees and one obama nominee judge hurwitz was appointed by obama and then brees and boomate were appointed by trump so we were already going into this case with a 2-1 lien potentially in favor of the second amendment especially also because we were coming off the heels of duncan vivacera which you heard cited a lot in this oral argument and then duncan v buser that dealt with california's ban on what they deem a large capacity magazines and a three-judge panel in dublin becerra found that california's ban on large capacity magazines violated the second amendment and i would have to say that my initial takeaways after listening to this a couple times is that this went a lot better than i thought it was going to go and i think a lot of you will probably have the same takeaway that even judge herwitz who was the obama appointee had a lot of critical questions for the state of california's representative as well as it seemed like judge hurwitz was being actually very fair in his questioning to both sides it didn't seem like he came into this with any preconceived notion one way or another of how he was going to judge it seemed like he was actually asking very important questions and was actually trying to define how exactly he was going to judge on this exact case it seemed like he was actually listening to what the parties were saying and a couple of times you actually heard judge horowitz say to the uh our representative us the plaintiffs saying that he wasn't intending to spar with the um representatives essentially saying he's not trying to be in combat with him he was just trying to figure out the limit and scope of what exactly our argument was he was trying to figure out how far our argument went and what our stance actually was and so that was very refreshing to actually see and i think that is represented almost immediately when our side opened up our arguments and kind of out of the gate there was a little bit of stumbling and back and forth between hurwitz and our representative about the scope of the second amendment and actually the type of analysis that should be heard in this specific case there's an instance right there at the beginning where our representative was talking about if this is something that affects the core of the second amendment and if it is a categorical ban or an outright ban it would fail under any amount of scrutiny and really that the court here the three judge panel wouldn't even really need to look at whether strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny would be applied because like we saw in dunkin ducera if it is something that strikes at the core of the second amendment and is an outright ban it would fail under either one and then there was a little bit of back and forth between hurwitz and our representative where it seemed like maybe hurwitz kind of misinterpreted what exactly our representative was saying and then there was some discussion of where exactly does heller say that and our side i think did a fair job of combating that and actually came back later and kind of clarified his position essentially all he was saying is that like in duncan if the court here finds that these types of rifles are protected by the core of the second amendment then an outright ban of that firearm that is protected on the second amendment would fail regardless of the type of scrutiny that this court would apply it wouldn't even matter if they applied intermediate scrutiny like duncan said in their case doesn't even matter it would still fail and still violate our second amendment rights here in the state of california and then there was an interesting question by judge boomate to our side and it was a question of how exactly should the three judge panel here address the various characteristics or items that are attached to california's assault weapons control act that make various firearms being considered assault weapons here in the state and our side kind of went back and forth and it was actually interesting because after there was some back and forth with judge boomate where our side said yes i think you should look at the analysis based on each single item or feature on that list in the assault women's control act and what they're referencing there is california penal code 30515 where there's multiple character uh characteristics outlined in there he said that this three judge panel should look at that and and kind of make their determined based on each feature but then judge herwich chimes in he says well wouldn't that kind of cut against your argument wouldn't it just be easier for our court if we were going to rule um in favor of your position to just say that these semi-automatic centerfire rifles are protected under the second amendment and it really doesn't matter what type of features are attached to them or not it reattaches them or restricted based on them simply if the semi-automatic centerfire rifles that we're talking about in the assault weapons control act are protected in the second amendment that's really all as far as you need to go and the type of features that are attached to them or on them really doesn't matter so as you can see like i was referencing earlier judge hurwitz sometimes kind of gave our side a little softball and said hey i'm going to help you clarify your argument or make it easier for you to persuade me toward your side towards your side of arguments because here he's saying i don't really like the fact that we have to get into looking at the various features of what would make a rifle protected under the second menu or not really the question that we should just address here is whether a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that's controlled under the assault women's control act is protected by the second amendment or not and that's really all as far as we have to go correct and our side said yes i agree with that completely that's really all you have to look at is is a semi-automatic center-fire rifle like mentioned here in the assault weapons control act protected on the second amendment if it is then you go to determine what type of scrutiny needs to be applied and then there was some back and forth from judge herwitz to our side where it seemed like he was trying to find the limits of our argument on our side and then you also heard a little bit of discussion about historical texts traditions stuff like that um actually historical basis for regulations on seminar semiautomatic centerfire rifles and our side i think did a very good job fielding these questions by the judges by essentially saying that the amicus brief that was followed by every town that talked about various state regulations of machine guns or rifles of this type isn't enough persuasive authority it's just a one-offs here and there from states based on poorly written statutes which which were eventually either completely eliminated or amended after the fact because what they did was not actually what was intended they were never intended to go after semi-automatic centerfire rifles like we're talking about here so now let's move to the state's representative and what he was saying in his part of the oral arguments and what exactly um did some of the judges say in response to what he was saying so right out of the gate the state representative tried to argue that this is not an outright ban on all types of rifles it's simply it is a sub-category ban it is a ban on semi-automatic centerfire rifles that have various features attached to them and he was trying to parse and essentially almost trying to argue that this is not some sort of overarching ban instead it's only a ban on subsets of rifles but of course what he's failing to recognize in his argument or what he's kind of hiding the ball in this is although he's saying that it's a ban on a particular type of rifle a semi-automatic centerfire rifle with various features that actual classification of a rifle encompasses a lot and i mean a lot of rifles not just here in the city of california but just in the u.s in general a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that has a detachable magazine with various features on it that are listed by the state of california encompasses almost every single semi-automatic centerfire rifle in the us and that almost every type of rifle that a manufacturer or a gun manufacturer makes there are some one-offs which you heard him represent and then our side also brought back some examples as well like the mini 14 that maybe don't fall into these classifications or like ruger 10 22's don't fall into classification but as far as what california does ban by its language it encompasses a majority of rifles here in the u.s and you heard judge hurwitz push back on this because he was saying i understand what the language says and that you're trying to parse out and saying this isn't an outright ban it only bans semi-automatic center fire rifles with a detachable magazine with various features that's what the state representative says just her what's in response says i understand what the language says but in a practicality in the real world application of this statute of this california penal code what does that look like does that ban a lot of firearms a lot of rifles or does it not and the answer to that is it bans a lot a lot of rifles and i'm sure a lot of you are aware that the implications of this exact language here in the state of california makes it so that we pretty much can't have a lot of rifles in that specific configuration and the rifles that would standardly come in those type of configurations that are made by manufacturers in that standard configuration we can't have them because of the language and then they got to this section that i referenced earlier where the state representative has pushed on whether he would concede that this type of rifle that we're talking about the ar-15 is owned by a lot of individuals not just in the state of california but in the us in general and he said no we can't really concede that we don't know how many there are and actually judge boomate was the one who asked that like couldn't you concede that this is a commonly used commonly owned rifle and like mentioned in duncan it is one of the most quintessential rifles in the u.s and the state representative said well you know i can't concede that and you can almost see on judge boomati's facial expression that he's like are you kidding me um we know it and you know it that this is one of the most commonly owned rifles in the us and here is where you actually have judge hurwitz chime in after the back and forth from uh judge boomate and the state representative where he said that it almost seems obvious that there are a lot a lot a lot of these types of rifles out there on the market owned by people and then they get into a distinction about okay let's assume that they are commonly used then let's talk about the type of restrictions that you could have on them and that's where they get into discussions about where the state representative is saying that these type of rifles don't fall under the second amendment because they are military grade weapons and then he tries to say that there is no distinction between a semi-automatic center fire ar-15 and a military grade m16 he is trying to see them as one of the same but he got a lot of pushback on this and it was actually interesting because the state representative tried to cite heller as far as m16s where scalia was writing about the m16 where he says that maybe uh m16s could be banned and actually the distinction that they were trying to draw was um and actually judge hurwitz brought this up is that scalia did not say that m16s or ar15s as a military equivalent can be um banned or regulated he was simply saying that maybe who knows we would have to look at that but we're not looking at that in in that specific case of heller so maybe they're the same as m16 maybe ar-15s could be banned but that's not what we're dealing with here so the state representative kind of got a lot of pushback on that specifically by judge hurwitz and then one of the last things i want to bring up as far as the state represented when he was getting asked to questions had to do with judge boomate asking about what level of scrutiny should be applied to this specific language in the state of california if we found that these type of arms are commonly owned and the state representative here said that we should apply intermediate scrutiny because if you find that there is some sort of other reasonable alternative then that means that it's okay and you apply it under intermediate scrutiny then judge boomate did something very interesting he asked him do we do that with any other type of constitutional right here in the u.s for example in the first amendment do we say that yes you have a constitutional right to your freedom of speech but you have a reasonable alternative and therefore we can restrict this aspect of your freedom of speech and then in response to that the state representative uses the classic example of yelling fire in a theater as an example of well we say that we can restrict your speech in that aspect but hey did something very interesting in response to that what he said is well actually the difference in that is that yelling fire in a theater is not protected first amendment speech we would say that that doesn't even fall under the first amendment which is much different than what we're talking about here in the second amendment where we're saying a type of firearm falls under the second amendment's protection but then the state of california is saying hey we can prohibit that we can put an end to you being able to purchase and possess that because you have these other firearms out there that you can get and i think it really signals to you at least where judge buma takes mind at is that he's saying this is a core constitutional protected right that we're talking about here and the fact that you are saying that there is some sort of other reasonable alternative we don't accept that in any other type of constitutional right issue or question we don't accept that in the first amendment we don't accept that when we're dealing with for the fourth amendment or anything else we don't accept that type of rationale so why would we accept it here with the second amendment so that was very refreshing to kind of hear judge boomate push back on the state on that specific issue so what are my general takeaways after watching all this i mean you heard me talk a lot about what both sides were asked by the judges and kind of what some of the critical points were back and forth from the representatives to the judges and my takeaway is that this might go pretty favorable to us i might even say that this has a potential to go 3-0 in our favor because judge hurwitz was asking a lot of very interesting questions to the state had a lot of questions that pushed back against the state as well as he pretty much accepted himself that these type of rifles are commonly owned that a lot of people own them and therefore it more than likely and probably does fall under the protection of the second amendment so then really the only question you have after that is what type of scrutiny should be applied i think this has a lot of potential this could have a lot of legs and this could have a lot of implications as well if this three-judge panel rules 3-0 this will have implications for miller down the road let's say that judge benitez and miller also finds in our favor puts an injunction on the assault weapons control act then judge benitez's decision is appealed up to the ninth circuit and the three-judge panel well we have rob vivacera right now that's been heard on oral arguments is pending a decision by the three judge panel if the three judge panel here says also that the assault weapons control act violates our second amendment rights once miller gets up to the ninth circuit we already have a decision by a three-judge panel this just research panel of military baser will simply have to follow what this panel here says in roughly because and essentially also validate what judge benitez says that hey the assault weapons control act in the state of california clearly violates the second amendment so hopefully that gave you some insight in some of my takeaways after i watched these oral arguments like i said it was very interesting and i'm really excited to see how this plays out and i could see this going 3-0 and also i think it maybe could go 3-0 or maybe even judge hurwitz maybe tipped his hand a little bit here is if you look in the background if you watch this video you can see two of our founding fathers kind of hanging up right above judge hurwitz so um he might not be as progressive liberal as we maybe thought he was i don't know i haven't read any of his other decisions but it's just kind of interesting when we're talking about core fundamental constitutional rights like the second amendment and then you have two of the founding fathers kind of just hanging above just horowitz as he's asking these questions so i just thought that was interesting and i made me chuckle a little bit so i'm interested in what you guys thought after watching this i'll put a link down below in the comment section and also in the details section to this video i think the video is a string of all the cases that they heard it starts at i believe like 57 minutes or something like that so it's towards the end so take a watch um and then tell me down the comment section below what were your takeaways after watching this case what do you think is going to happen so if you like this video and like support the channel when the best ways to do that is join the patreon page and i'll put a link down below to the patreon page also just like comment subscribing and make sure you hit that notification bell because that helps the channel analytics helps us spread the word about the second amendment and also what we have to deal with here in the state of california so as always thanks guys for watching don't forget to like subscribe and never forget this niche was built byron scholars and this nation will be maintained by scholars

Channel: Armed Scholar

Views: 148,128

Keywords: rupp v. becerra, Rupp, Rupp v. Becerra, rupp v becerra, 9th circuit, rupp arguments, miller v. becerra, freedom week, freedom week 1, freedom week 1.0, freedom week 2.0, duncan v. becerra, Duncan v. Becerra, freedom week california, duncan v. becerra case, duncan v. becerra update, duncan v. becerra status

Id: KvlyBRYbiL8

Length: 17min 30sec (1050 seconds)

Published: Fri Oct 09 2020