BREAKING: With Supreme Court Decision Looming, Federal Appeals Court DOUBLES DOWN on AR-15 Ban

[00:00:00]The First Circuit Court of Appeals just told the United States Supreme Court, "We're sticking with our position until you force us to change it." Because that's exactly what just happened, and now the showdown is really on for the assault weapon bans.

[00:00:15]Just yesterday the First Circuit issued a brand new decision involving Massachusetts swim swimming sweeping so-called assault weapons ban, and they didn't just reject the challenge. They reaffirmed almost everything they previously said.

[00:00:31]Wait till you hear this one. They doubled down on their earlier reasoning.

[00:00:34]They relied heavily on their controversial Caetano decision, and perhaps most importantly, they acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court is already preparing to decide whether AR-15 bans are constitutional. Yet they still refused to change course or utilize Bruen.

[00:00:53]That is a huge development, because while this is certainly a setback for Massachusetts and the First Circuit today, it also may be one of the last appellate decisions before the Supreme Court finally answers the question once and for all.

[00:01:09]Let's break this down, tell you exactly what happened. But before we jump in, if you're new here, my name is Jared, and this channel is dedicated to bringing you the latest Second Amendment news while explaining what these court decisions actually mean, not just headlines, because I read the decisions.

[00:01:24]If you appreciate real constitutional analysis, then subscribe to the channel, turn on notifications, and help us continue reaching more Americans.

[00:01:32]This case is Ruchia or Ruccia, R E C C H I A. It's I think it's Ruccia. Ruccia versus Campbell. Now, the plaintiff is Gino Ruccia, who's the owner of Mass Armament in Massachusetts. He challenged Massachusetts' 2024 expansion of its assault weapon law after the state dramatically broadened what firearms are prohibited. Now, the law now prohibits the possession, sale, transfer, and importation of what Massachusetts calls assault-style firearms, while grandfathering certain firearms already possessed before August 1st, 2024, if they were properly registered. Now, violations carry severe criminal penalties. The lawsuit challenged the law under three constitutional theories.

[00:02:19]First, the Second Amendment. Second was the dormant commerce clause. And three, equal protection.

[00:02:26]Yesterday, the first circuit rejected every single ONE OF THOSE.

[00:02:34]BEFORE WE CONTINUE, GUYS, WATCH THIS.

[00:02:49]>> MY name is Eric Salisbury. I was involved in a self-defense shooting in Portland, Oregon. I had been a member of AOR for about 6 months before this happened. I was amazed at the response of the AOR legal team. From the moment that I called and talked to Andrew, they were on the case and they were talking to the detectives, to the police officers. If you own a firearm, you've got to be able to protect yourself on the legal side. This team will do that for you.

[00:03:19]>> Imagine defending yourself in a life-threatening situation. You did everything right. You're not even charged with a crime. But then months later you get sued. A lot of people don't even realize that even a justified act of self-defense can still lead to a civil case. With attorneys on retainer, you're protected on both sides with unlimited criminal and civil representation. And unlike other options, your civil attorney is part of the process from day one, helping shape your defense early, not trying to catch up months later, and then react down the line.

[00:03:53]That kind of coordination can make a huge difference when everything is on the line. Attorneys on Retainer is a national self-defense program that is backed up by the Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm, the only law firm in the country that exclusively handles self-defense cases.

[00:04:09]Visit Attorneys on Retainer via my QR code that's floating here somewhere, or the link below, and learn more about what all of the benefits of membership have for you.

[00:04:19]With the benefits of joining up to save yourself when you're saving yourself or others. Sign up today with my promo code GNG to get $50 off your one-time sign-up fee for your individual plan, or $25 off your one-time sign-up fee for your family plan. And those numbers will be drastically changing on July 31st.

[00:04:38]That's the time when this deal runs to.

[00:04:40]Don't know what it will be after that, so take advantage of it now.

[00:04:43]Also, I will be at Gun Owners of America's Goals Conference on August 1st and 2nd in Des Moines, Iowa. AOR will also be there in booth 2712, and I will be doing a meet and greet on Saturday, August 1st at 2:00 p.m., and AOR and their attorneys will have a breakout session from 11:00 to 12:00, so you can learn more about the program.

[00:05:03]Come say hi, and meet the attorneys who want to defend you when you defend yourself.

[00:05:08]Now, let's get back to this court opinion.

[00:05:10]Here's where this decision gets interesting. The First Circuit didn't spend pages reanalyzing Bruen. Instead, they essentially said, "Yeah, yeah, we already decided this.

[00:05:20]To hell with your Bruen thing."

[00:05:23]The court repeatedly points back to its earlier decision in Caetano, where it upheld Massachusetts' earlier assault weapon ban.

[00:05:29]And because of what's known as the law of the circuit doctrine, one panel generally cannot overrule another panel.

[00:05:38]But then there's that Bruen thing.

[00:05:40]Unless the Supreme Court changes the law.

[00:05:43]They're bound by Caetano, and that became the centerpiece in the opinion here. The judges essentially concluded, "We've already answered this question." The court also addressed one argument that many Second Amendment supporters, including many historians, have made for years.

[00:05:59]The plaintiff argued that one reason the Second Amendment exists is to resist tyranny.

[00:06:05]And we know that's true. If that's true and for this case, then citizens must be able to possess arms comparable to modern infantry weapons. And the plaintiff argued the AR-15 is effectively the civilian counterpart to the military's M-16.

[00:06:21]And the First Circuit rejected that argument. Not because it said resistance to tyranny wasn't wasn't part of the Second Amendment's history, but because the Supreme Court rejected that exact theory in District of Columbia versus Heller.

[00:06:34]So, they use Supreme Court precedent to help fortify their decision or their opinion.

[00:06:39]But, they won't use Bruen to destroy the unconstitutional ban.

[00:06:43]Well, the Supreme Court's going to do that for you in June. Uh the panel quoted Heller's decision that although the prefatory clause references the militia, modern developments do not require that citizens possess the same weaponry carried carried by soldiers.

[00:07:01]For them and for this this ruling here, this opinion, that is an important distinction. Whether you agree with it or not, the First Circuit says Heller controls.

[00:07:11]Funny.

[00:07:13]Now, here's where uh my attention was kind of glistening here. It kind of caught my attention when the court said that there has been no Supreme Court decision since Caetano that changes the analysis.

[00:07:26]They specifically mentioned that the Supreme Court's recent Hemani decision happened, and they conclude that Hemani actually reinforces using historical analogs under Bruen rather than replacing that framework.

[00:07:39]Now, many Second Amendment attorneys strongly disagree with that interpretation. Many believe that Heller significantly tightened the historical analysis and makes it much harder for governments to justify modern gun restrictions. The First Circuit obviously disagrees. And that disagreement is exactly why these cases continue moving toward the Supreme Court. So, thank you, First Circuit, for being a bunch of jackasses.

[00:08:02]The plaintiffs also argued that Massachusetts was interfering with interstate commerce because their business depends heavily on buying firearms from outside Massachusetts.

[00:08:13]The court wasn't persuaded on that, either. They said this wasn't discrimination against out-of-state businesses because Massachusetts wasn't favoring in-state manufacturers over out-of-state manufacturers.

[00:08:25]Instead, Massachusetts simply prohibited certain products from being sold inside its borders.

[00:08:30]The court relied on dormant dormant commerce clause precedent to conclude that that kind of non-discriminatory regulation does not violate the Constitution simply because it affects interstate business relationships.

[00:08:45]Mhm. [snorts] Finally, the plaintiffs argued they were treated differently than firearms dealers in other states. Again, the First Circuit rejected this claim.

[00:08:55]The judges explained that different states are allowed to adopt different firearm regulations and that the equal protection clause doesn't require every state to have identical laws. Now, because the court concluded no fundamental right was implicated for purposes of the equal protection analysis beyond the already rejected Second Amendment claim, it applied rational basis review and affirmed the dismissal.

[00:09:20]Now, here's the part I think everyone watching should pay attention to. Near the end of the opinion, the First Circuit openly acknowledges something huge. The judges note that the United States Supreme Court has already granted review in consolidated AR-15 ban cases that will determine whether the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect ownership of AR-15 style rifles.

[00:09:45]Think about that. The First Circuit knows the Supreme Court is about to answer this very question, yet instead of waiting, they double down on Capen.

[00:09:54]Now, from a constitutional perspective, this decision changes very little nationally.

[00:10:01]Inside the First Circuit, yes, Massachusetts law survives another day, but nationally, the real fight has already moved to the Supreme Court, and that's where this battle will ultimately be decided. Next June, my friends, will be chef's kiss for those behind enemy walls. And if the Supreme Court rules, and they they will, that AR-15s are protected arms under the 2nd Amendment, opinions like this won't survive. If the court rules that the other way, well, then states across the country will almost certainly expand similar prohibitions. That's why this upcoming Supreme Court case may become one of the most important 2nd Amendment decisions since Bruen, and arguably since Heller.

[00:10:42]Now, this opinion is certainly disappointing for gun owners in Massachusetts. I get it.

[00:10:46]But, it is also another reminder that lower courts continue reaching sharply different conclusions about how to apply Bruen and Hamani.

[00:10:54]And that is precisely why Supreme Court review matters so much. That's why we love a circuit split, and thank you to the First Circuit for really cementing the circuit split here.

[00:11:04]Now, I want to hear from you guys. Do you think the Supreme Court will finally provide a clear, nationwide answer on AR-15 bans, or do you think we'll continue seeing years and years of conflicting decisions from the lower courts? Let me know in the comments down below, and if you found this breakdown helpful, please hit the like button, subscribe if you haven't already, and share this video with someone who wants to understand what these decisions actually mean. As always, thank you for your watching. I love you, and thank you for your support. Stay safe, stay armed, and stay free. I'll see you on the next one.

[00:11:32]Take care.

[00:11:38]>> [music]