Opinion
Support Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner on YT
Since the landmark Bruen decision, Mark Smith, legal scholar and host of The Four Boxes Diner on YouTube, has been vocal about what he sees as significant missteps by courts handling Second Amendment cases. As Smith explains, the Second Amendment isn’t just words on paper; it’s a solid, constitutionally protected right for Americans to keep and bear arms.
However, according to him, many courts are still missing the mark, even with clear Supreme Court guidance from Bruen and Heller.
In his paper, he argues that these cases are crucial for American gun rights moving forward. His recent scholarly paper “Dangerous, but not Unusual: Mistakes Commonly Made by Courts in Post-Bruen Litigation” (embedded below) highlights the core mistakes that could seriously impact the future of lawful firearm ownership. Here’s a breakdown of some of the key points he raises:
Common Use – It’s Not Just for Self-Defense
Regarding the “in common use” standard from Heller. This test means that if millions of law-abiding Americans legally own a type of firearm, the government shouldn’t have the power to ban it. Some courts have twisted this idea, claiming that common use only counts if it’s for self-defense. The paper emphasizes that this narrow view isn’t the law; if millions of people own a gun like the AR-15 for activities like target shooting, hunting, or collecting, that qualifies as “common use” under the Second Amendment.
Shifting the Burden of Proof – A Major Constitutional Misstep
In many recent cases, courts have put the burden on gun owners to prove their right to possess certain firearms. Smith is clear: that’s backward. Bruen states that once a gun owner shows the Second Amendment applies, the government must prove why it has a historical basis for any restriction.
This burden-shifting tactic, flips the Second Amendment on its head, making people justify their rights instead of forcing the government to justify its bans.
Fear-Based Bans on “Dangerous” Guns
Smith tackles the “dangerous and unusual” argument courts use to ban certain firearms. Just because a gun looks intimidating doesn’t mean it’s unusual or that it should be banned. The Supreme Court has already ruled that “dangerousness” isn’t a legal basis for gun restrictions. The paper warns that if we let courts ban guns on appearances, there’s no telling where that line stops.
The Technological Change Trap
Some courts argue that modern firearms, like semi-automatics, are so advanced compared to the muskets of the 1700s that the founders wouldn’t have anticipated them. That reminds us the Heller ruling addressed this argument, affirming that just because a gun is more sophisticated doesn’t mean it’s unprotected by the Second Amendment. Technology might evolve, but the core right to self-defense doesn’t.
Expanding “Sensitive Places” to Chip Away at Rights
Smith sees the push to declare more areas “sensitive places” as a dangerous expansion. Bruen was clear: you can’t just call every location “sensitive” and ban guns there. Historical records show that even at places like churches and town meetings, armed citizens were a norm for community defense.
According to him, this attempt to stretch “sensitive places” is a backdoor attempt to restrict the Second Amendment.
Licensing Games & Hidden Barriers
Finally, the paper calls out states trying to maintain “may-issue” licensing under new names and standards, like “good moral character.” He warns that these subjective rules give government officials too much leeway to deny rights. By keeping vague standards, states are turning a constitutional right into a privilege for only those who pass their tests.
Why This Matters for Every American
Mark Smith’s paper doesn’t just highlight issues—it’s a call to action. He believes that an informed citizenry is essential for holding courts accountable. If people understand their rights, they’re better prepared to fight back against misapplications of the law. Defending the Second Amendment isn’t just a legal battle—it’s about preserving the fundamental right of self-defense for all Americans.
For those who care about their rights, following these legal cases and understanding their impact is the best defense against the erosion of gun rights. By staying educated and aware, gun owners can stand up against efforts to redefine the Second Amendment out of existence.
Read Related: How Has the Bruen Decision Impacted the 2nd Amendment Litigation Landscape? ~ DEEP DIVE
Dangerous, but not Unusual: Mistakes Commonly Made by Courts in Post-Bruen Litigation MARK W. SMITH*
How Has the Bruen Decision Impacted the 2nd Amendment Litigation Landscape? ~ DEEP DIVE
I like Mark and watching his videos. He makes clear what is going on and how things are being done illegally and tells us what needs to happen as well as at times what we need to do if needed. He is one smart cookie.
I’m glad Ammoland lets him post on here. America needs more like him, especially in the court room.
Aye aye sir!!!
For more than 40 years, I have been asking the same question: Where in the wording of The Second Amendment is there any provision for, or even a suggestion of, restrictions, limitations, or exceptions? Answer: There is none. That, in and of itself, is an extremely powerful argument that every one of the more than 24,000 gun control laws currently in effect in this nation at the federal, state, and local levels is unconstitutional. As for Courts citing “precedent” to validate various gun control laws, I will point out that using “precedent” to make decisions can simply lead to making… Read more »
The Supreme Court can’t enact law or make moral decisions. The Supreme Court is only supposed to decide if a law or decision is permitted by the Constitution. People get upset when SCOTUS remands a case back down to the “lower” court, but that’s what it should often do. If there’s nothing in the Constitution concerning abortion, then the individual states can decide for themselves. Is abortion a matter of national security or is it a moral decision? Now, does a person have rights before he is born? The Constitution does not recognize those rights, so again, it’s left to… Read more »
You and I are in full agreement. Our citizens need to go back to the Constitution which, so very sadly, hardly anyone has ever read, and even fewer understand. The Constitution grants 18 specific authorities/responsibilities to the federal government; all other authorities/responsibilities belongs to the states or to the people. Over the last century or so, the federal government has intruded into areas which the Constitution does not grant it authority to do, aided and abetted by judges who either don’t understand the Constitution or who have a political agenda. That has led us to the situation we have today,… Read more »
These inferior court judges in blue iron curtain state districts are nothing but political activists hacks!!! I’m sick of the foolish childish ignore Heller/Bruen delay gamesmanship that they’re playing with our rights. I live in Connecticut with all the terrible gun control laws and watching my case challenging the semiautomatic rifle ban move very slowly through the very anti gun Second District is angrily frustrating!!! The positive thing is the very similar case to mine the Maryland Snope v Brown is at SCOTUS. Maybe we can finally put this very long overdue foolish argument upholding the unconstitutional ban at the… Read more »