BREAKING NEWS! MASSIVE UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT CASE TORCHES RED FLAG LAWS!

[00:00:00]Oh my. The United States Supreme Court in the case of United States versus Hammmani has just driven a stake through the heart of blue state red flag laws, which of course is a euphemism for taking away your guns really without due process. I don't think that's going to happen anymore thanks to the US Supreme Court's decision in Hmani. A lot of people have not picked up on this. We're going to go over it right here, right now. You're not going to want to miss this one. Stay tuned.

[00:00:30]Hey folks, I'm Mark Smith, host of the four box of diner. Proud American gun owner, constitutional attorney, member of the United States Supreme Court Bar and I'm proud to say the top voice of the Second Amendment in America. Thank you. 2025 and 2026 Gundy's awards. All right, folks. As you know, the United States Supreme Court issued this huge case in United States versus Hammani dealing with whether or not just by virtue of the fact that you used marijuana, does that alone justify you being able to have to give up or be forced to give up your Second Amendment rights while you're using marijuana illegally? Well, the US Supreme Court said, "No, just because you're an unlawful user of an illegal drug, that alone does not mean that you forfeit your Second Amendment rights while you're taking the drug."

[00:01:16]Now, as I've gone over before, when you look at a Supreme Court case from the perspective of what's good for the Second Amendment, what's bad for the Second Amendment, we look at two two things, right? The first is who wins the case. In this particular case, Mr. uh Hmani won the case. So, it's good for Mr. Kamani the US government the department of justice lost the case so this is bad for DOJ at least the lawyers who argued I would say but beyond that from our perspective in the second amendment community while it's important to know who won the case it's far more important to understand how here for example Mr. Kamani won the case because it's the language, it's the opinion, it's the explanation, it's the interpretation and analysis that the US Supreme Court explains in their opinion that we in the Second Amendment community can take and use moving forward in court cases all across America. So now the Hmani case can be cited as a precedent in New York State court, in California federal court, in Idaho, in Texas, in Florida, in Washington State, in Hawaii. You get the point? It's now a major precedent. So that is why I'm spending time on my videos now showing you the different ways that you in your communities can use the Hammani decision as a tool to fight for our right to keep and bear arms or at least to understand how it can be used. Now, one huge thing that only a few people have picked up on is that the Himmani decision is going to be able to be used by people fighting blue state crazy red flag laws.

[00:03:03]Now, before we explain how that's doable, I just want to remind you what a red flag law is and why they exist. Big picture. Big picture. Everyone in America agrees that if someone is mentally ill and psychotic, like Michael Myers in the Halloween movies, those people should be locked up in a mental institution until they get cured. We should not have them out on the street hitting people in the head with hammers on a New York City subway system, if you know what I'm saying. We do not want mentally ill, violent people on the streets. Nor do we want violent criminals out on the streets because they do all sorts of terrible things to people which in and of itself is bad.

[00:03:48]But then they also misuse firearms in high-profile ways which give gives rise in many instances to further calls for gun control. So, in the Second Amendment community space, while we support the peaceable, law-abiding, compliance, uh, you know, use of firearms, if you will, the lawful use of firearms, we do not support the misuse of firearms or any weapon. And we do not support psychopaths being on the streets doing terrible things to people or criminals doing terrible things to people through violence. So with that said, with that said, for many, many, many decades, there has already been a process to put people that are violent criminals or mentally ill psychopaths in prison or mental institutions. When it comes to prison, if you commit a violent crime, you get put in prison. That's obvious.

[00:04:40]But if you're mentally ill and a psychopath, meaning you're violently mentally ill and a danger to yourself or to others, there has been a process known as the civil commitment process.

[00:04:52]Now, you need to understand this to compare and contrast the civil commitment process with the red flag process in modern America. And you need to understand this distinction because once you understand the distinction, which you'll understand in about one minute, you will see how we in the Second Amendment community are going to be able to use this Hmani case to drive a stake through the heart of modern-day blue state red flag laws. So again, to step back, a civil commitment process has literally been in America for many, many, many decades. So the purpose of the civil commitment laws have always been if someone is not in touch with mother earth, they're mentally ill and they're dangerous to themselves or to someone else. There's a process called the civil commitment process that can be brought where you show in a court of law that these people need help. They need to be put away because they're a danger, a physically violent danger to themselves or somebody else. Now, the the reason why you need to understand about the civil commitment process is in every single state has a civil commitment law of some sort. And they all provide super duper high-end due process protections. You got lawyers involved that are paid for if you can't afford uh them. They got expert witnesses to talk about your mental state. The burden of proof is on the government to show that you're mentally ill and a danger to yourself. There's all sorts of things to get paid for to protect your rights and the government has to show by a high burden of proof known as clear and convincing before they can put you in a mental institution. So there's all these civil protections, these due process protections that have built up around the civil commitment process as well.

[00:06:29]They should because your right to be free is a fundamental right. And before you can be deprived of a fundamental right, you have to have robust due process protections in place to make sure you're not willy-nilly just locked up either in prison and or mental institution uh without having the ability to sort of cross-examine witnesses, to confront people, all sorts of things and put on a case as to why you should remain free. Okay? So, that has been around for decades. And therefore, there's been on the law for decades the process in all 50 states that if someone is too dangerous to be on the streets with a gun, there's a way to take away their gun and or lock them up in mental institutions. This is not new. So, the purpose of red flag laws in modern America as advanced by the anti-gun movement is to pretend that the civil commitment process doesn't exist.

[00:07:18]Even though not only does it exist in all 50 states, it's existed for decades in all 50 states. But the anti-gunners want to take away your guns and they want to be able to do it basically without due process. So the way the red flag system works versus the civil commitment process works is number one is the anti-gunners don't tell anybody or talk about the fact there's already a civil commitment process. Number one, they pretend like there's no method or means or law to take away guns or otherwise have a remedy to protect the public from whackadoodles, which of course is not true because there's civil commitment. Number two is they basically want to deny you of due process. They just want someone to be able to come in, accuse you of being mentally ill or violent danger or whatever it is, and they can go in and take away your guns.

[00:08:05]The third thing, of course, is the only remedy, meaning the only thing they can do to you in the red flag context is to take away your guns. But my view has always been if you're too dangerous to be out on the street with a gun, odds are you're too dangerous to be out on the street, period. Which goes back to the civil commitment process where at the end of the civil commitment process, if you're found to be a danger to yourself and to someone else and you're mentally ill, they put you in a mental institution until they treat you and hopefully you get better. And again, for the red flag context, unlike the civil commitment process, it only is targeting one group of Americans. Those are gun owners. If you don't own a gun, then the red flag process doesn't do anything for you. Right? If you have a bunch of stake knives, it doesn't mean anything because the remedy in the context of red flag laws is you lose your gun rights. Okay?

[00:08:53]So, with that said, the US Supreme Court has just basically laid out in detail what has to be found for someone to lose their gun rights, including in the context of red flag laws. Even though the Hani case is not specific to red flag laws, the language the Supreme Court used in Hammani will be able to use to put a stake through red flag laws in these blue states that are basically just trying to harass gun owners, take away their gun rights, and make it very expensive for gun owners to pay their own bill to get their gun rights back, which is crazy. So, to begin with, let me step back and remind all of you because we're going to get to Hammani in one second. But before we get to Hammani, we got to remind you of the decision in the United States versus Raheem. And in Raheem, you may recall, uh, he was found to have been okay to keep in prison because he was indeed a danger to other people. He was found to be the case. And here's what the Supreme Court said in Raheem. And then we're going to tie that into the Hani case.

[00:09:48]Check it out. In Raheem, the Supreme Court said, quote, we conclude only this. An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed. consistent with the second amendment. So that's the standard, right? The initial standard is if you're found by a court to be a danger to yourself or to someone else being a physical danger, you can be temporarily disarmed. But in Raheem, because Mr. Rahheem admitted to being into danger to his girlfriend and admitted to taking his girlfriend's head and bashing against the diamond board and then shooting at witnesses, there was no dispute and no due process issue with Mr. Raheem. And the Supreme Court in the Raheem case said exactly that that we don't need to worry about due process in Raheem because he basically admitted it in court and a court already made the finding. Here's what the court said in Raheem and they're going to compare that to the Hammani case. Check out the Raheem statement by the Supreme Court here. Many of the potential felts that the fifth circuit identifies in section 922 G8 in the Raheem case appear to sound in due process rather than the second amendment. But we need not address any due proc due process concern here because this challenge by Mr. Raheem was not litigated as a due process challenge and there is no such claim before us. So again in Raheem there was no dispute that he was a danger to himself or he was a danger to other people specifically his girlfriend and that he was violent and there was a court finding of that. But again you have these due process protections. The way to understand this is the second amendment protects the fundamental substantive right to keep and bear arms.

[00:11:25]But before that can be deprived from you, there has to be process that is due process. Meaning you got to you know about the case. You have an opportunity to be heard. You have an opportunity to fight the case. And that is found both in the fifth amendment to the US constitution and the 14th amendment to to the US constitution where you cannot be deprived of fundamental rights or any rights for that matter without due process of law. So, let's just take a look at the language from the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment, and then we'll explain how Hmani saves the day when it comes to gun owners being harassed by red flag laws. Check it out.

[00:11:56]The fifth amendment to the constitution provides, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." And under the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, it provides, "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Okay, so now we've set that up with Raheem and the Constitution. You can't be deprived of rights such as your Second Amendment rights, your right to keeping arms or your guns without a due process protections. Meaning the process has to be fair and appropriate and you got to have adequate protections. Now, the US Supreme Court in the Hammani case just now in ruling for Mr. Hammani pointed out that there must be pre-deprivation processes in place before you can be denied any rights, including your Second Amendment rights. So, let's take a look at what the Supreme Court just said in the Hammani case about how you can't be denied these rights without again process. And the only time you can be found to lose your second amendment rights is if there's a pre-deprivation, which means before you lose your rights, a pre-eprivation uh process that you get to fight. And only after you fight and lose can you be deprived of your rights, but you have a chance to fight it to argue it's not true, you're not dangerous, and so on.

[00:13:11]And here's what the Supreme Court in Hammani said about predeprivation process before you lose any rights, including your Second Amendment rights.

[00:13:17]Check it out. The historical laws the government identifies usually provided some form of process process before an individual lost any of his liberties, even temporarily.

[00:13:31]Normally, a vagrant could be sent to a workhouse or jail only upon a conviction.

[00:13:36]Generally, a habitual drunkard could be assigned a guardian or committed to an asylum only after only after proceedings before a probate court or something like it. And typically, shity statutes required a proceeding before a justice of the peace or a comparable officer before a bond could be ordered or if a bond was not posted, before a jail sentence could be imposed.

[00:14:04]You see all those references to pre-deprivation process and the history in all context.

[00:14:12]Big deal folks. That means you cannot lose your gun rights or your second amendment rights or your guns without some sort of process ahead of time where you can fight it. Here's what the Supreme Court had to say. They continue on and really keep hammering home this notion of predeperation process. Check out the next thing they said in Hmani.

[00:14:29]on the government's account. The statute here automatically divest an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user and until he ends his drug use. Listen carefully folks, all without all without any pre-deprivation process.

[00:14:51]But be that as it may, under this particular law, it offers an unlawful user no no predeprivation process before his temporary disarmament. The very burden the government says is akin to the burden burdens of vagrancy, civil commitment and shy laws imposed on habitual drunkards. Again, the Supreme Court is hammering home pre-deprivation process must be in place before you lose your second amendment right to keep and bear arms. There has to be a process.

[00:15:23]And they're taking the federal government to task here in the Helmani case because they're like, you're just saying that the guy loses his gun rights without a process. That is BS. That's not how it works under the Constitution.

[00:15:33]That's not how it works. And that's exactly what the Supreme Court is getting at and driving home with the phrase pre-eprivation process in the Hammani case. and they continue to say similar things. Check this one out.

[00:15:44]Certain other provisions of section 922, such as subsections G1, disarming convicted felons, and G4, disarming any person adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution, all involve some manner of pre-deprivation process before an individual's second amendment rights are lost. So you can see the court is very much focused on you can't lose your second amendment rights without predeprivation processes.

[00:16:16]Red flag laws in most of these states have some basically way they can take away your guns first and then you get to fight to get your guns back. The court is clearly indicating that that's a no-go zone. But it gets even better for us in the red flag context because here the Supreme Court says there has to be an individualized determination about you specifically that you are a danger that you are likely to misuse the guns that there's something wrong with you to make you a physically violent danger.

[00:16:43]There has to be an individualized assessment of your situation and you it can't be this wavy wavy of the arm that you're something problematic or you like Trump. No, it has to be an indiv individualized determination. And the court specifically says that in the Hmani case, here's what the Supreme Court said about an individualized determination being admission critical before you can be found to be a violent danger to yourself or to others and by extension to lose your second amendment rights. Here's what the court said.

[00:17:09]Check it out. The law says the government does not require anything more. It doesn't matter what controlled substance an individual uses and what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others. It doesn't even matter why he keeps a gun or how safely he does so. According to the government, none of this turns on how much marijuana Mr. Almani uses or what effect it has on him. It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for self-defense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use. The government considers Mr. Mr. Hermani an unlawful user of a controlled substance because he admits to using marijuana about every other day. But how much marijuana does Mr. Hermani use and what potency and to what effect? Is he routinely routinely unable to manage his affairs? A risk to himself or his family or does he use a mild gummy as a sleep aid a few times a week?

[00:18:11]We do not know and the government says it doesn't matter. So again, you see the Supreme Court is saying you can't just wavy wavy and say, "Hey, Mr. Hammani uses drugs illegally. That means we get to take away his second amendment rights." The Supreme Court's like, "No, that's not enough. You need to get into the details." What makes T Mr. Hammani dangerous? If he's dangerous to himself or someone else, you got to prove it.

[00:18:34]Government, the burden is on you to prove it with a pre-eprivation process.

[00:18:38]Here's what the court has to say in Hermani. Exactly what I said on this channel before. It's all about dangerousness. Check it out. The government submits habitual drunkard laws restricted the liberties of people to the same end that the current law does to protect the public from unusually dangerous individuals who commit violent crimes. And then it goes on to say, the court goes on to say, the government contends that the relevant section disarms unlawful drug users to protect the public from unusually dangerous individuals who will misuse firearms to commit violent crimes. But even spotting the government its assertion about 922G3's aims, the government misapprehends the purposes animating the historical analog it invokes. Usually they had little to do with protecting the public from categorically violent and unusually dangerous persons. And again, the court keeps hammering home. It's all about being physically violent, dangerous to yourself or to others. That's the key to whether or not a modern-day gun control law is constitutional or not. Here's what the court says in Hmani. Again, hammering home the notion of physical dangerousness. Check it out. Those laws generally required an individual shown to pose a specific threat of violence to post a bond and pledge to keep the peace. goes on to say that sure ties of the peace or shurities of the peace applied to those who pose some present or future danger and goes on to say that failure to post a bond meant jail and disturbing the peace after posting a bond meant forfeiting in it. But then it says that some shy of the peace laws we held were designed to prevent violence and targeted the misuse of firearms.

[00:20:24]Again, it's all about danger and the misuse of guns. That's the key. It's consistent with my views that crimes that are mal prohibitum, meaning the government just says they are the benth of a barrel is too long. All this kind of stuff. You can see where the Supreme Court is moving second amendment jurist prudence to that you cannot lose your second amendment rights without some sort of a pre-deprivation process. That process has to comply with all the due process rules. There has to be an individualized determination that you specifically are dangerous to yourself or to someone else. There's something unique about you. And it cannot just be the government saying it. It has to be proven with specific evidence. Just like they said, Mr. Hermani, there was not enough evidence that he was a danger to anybody. Just because he used drugs, that was not enough. They had to do more than that to prove the case. And of course, the all turns on dangerousness.

[00:21:14]So, this ties back into the Raheem case that says the only time you can be temporarily disarmed is if you have been found by a court after a hearing in due process that you're a physical danger to somebody else or to yourself. It all ties in together. And this is what we want to see because we're going to be able to use this precedent by the US Supreme Court that is laying out some of the details of what needs to occur before you can be deprived of your Second Amendment rights. So when these red flag uh jurisdictions try to take away your rights, certainly people are going to be able to use the Hmani case to fight to argue that the processes or lack thereof in a lot of these states is simply uh verboten and is not sufficient to give you adequate protections before you are deprived of your second amendment rights. And again, remember the whole idea of modern day red flag laws is to basically gloss over the fact that if somebody is truly mentally ill and a danger to themselves and a danger to someone else, the proper process is not these modern uh shortcut laws, red flag laws. It's really about going back to the ancient civil commitment laws because but of course the anti-gunners don't like that because the civil commitment laws have all sorts of protections for the people accused of being mentally ill and accused of being dangerous and the anti-gunners hate that. So that's why they want to pretend those civil commitment laws don't exist.

[00:22:35]And they want to basically talk about these modern red flag laws which are designed specifically to target gun owners and the only remedy is to take away guns without any adequate due process. But the US Supreme Court in Hmani, if you look at the language that I just gave you here, right here and right now, it's pretty clear that the Supreme Court is not going to tolerate that moving forward. And I think that you litigators and you people out there, you know, fighting in the good fight in the blue states are going to be able to use the Hanmani case uh to great effect in terms of protecting our right to keep and bear arms. All right, folks. Well, I hope this wasn't too geeky for you.

[00:23:05]Appreciate you tuning in. Make sure you follow me over on X Forbox. Don't forget to subscribe both YouTube and the Rumble. And I'll talk to you again real soon here at the Forbox Diner.

[00:23:14]>> Orders up. Table 2A.