The 2nd Amendment Is Under Attack in Maryland and Rhode Island!
Featuring Attorneys Marc J. Victor and Joey Hamby
June 11, 2025
Recent firearm bans in Maryland and Rhode Island have sparked intense debate over Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear challenges to these laws has raised concerns about whether it truly serves the people. By denying certiorari, the Court effectively upheld lower court decisions supporting sweeping bans on popular firearms.
Criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Joey Hamby argue that it is the Supreme Court’s duty to defend constitutional rights against legislative overreach. They urge Americans not to rely solely on the Court, but to actively protect their freedoms through political engagement, voting, and grassroots activism.
“So, I think the takeaway for our members, our viewers, is go to the ballot box and protect your rights individually. However, if you’re relying on just the courts to do it, here’s where you end up many times.”
CORE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS:
Role of Government: Marc J. Victor, Esq. argues that the central divide is whether government should protect individual liberties or pursue broader social goals. He warns that expanding state power often erodes constitutional freedoms, especially the right to bear arms.
“The purpose of government is to act as our agent to protect our rights, the rights that we already have. We form the government… We then defer some of our authority to them for the sole purpose of protecting our rights.”
Second Amendment Interpretation: While District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed an individual’s right to bear arms, new legal disputes focus on what types of weapons are protected and whether the Second Amendment guards against government tyranny. The attorneys highlight the Founders’ intent to prevent authoritarian rule, even citing Myanmar as a cautionary tale.
“Think about when the Constitution was written and how soon after a revolution against a tyrannical government… Yeah. And do you think that the framers were thinking only of self-defense? Of course not.”
ANALYZING THE COURTS PROCESS:
The attorneys criticize the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court’s refusal to review Snope V. Brown, a case involving bans on 45 specific items, including the AR-15. They argue that rationale, deeming such weapons unsuitable for self-defense, undermines individual rights and favors criminals and the state over law-abiding citizens. They also agree that Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent hints that at least four justices – Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh himself – are ready to overturn such bans. However, hesitation from Justices Roberts and Barrett left the issue unresolved.
“What happened with Roberts and Barrett? You don’t hear a peep out of them on this case… if one of those two had said, you know what, I agree. We should take this case and reverse this. They would have taken this case.”
JUSTICE THOMAS’S DEFENSE OF GUN RIGHTS:
Thomas’s concurrence stresses that modern firearms like the AR-15 are constitutionally protected as they qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment. He rejects outdated views that only 18th-century weapons are covered, emphasizes the “dangerous and unusual” standard, and calls out courts for wrongly shifting the burden onto gun owners.
“Thomas’s decision was absolutely fantastic here. Spot on.”
FINAL THOUGHTS
The attorneys remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will soon correct lower court missteps, but they warn that future outcomes depend heavily on the political makeup of the Court. They urge supporters to stay informed, vote, and remain politically engaged, especially around judicial appointments. Finally, they ask viewers to educate themselves and consider joining The Attorneys On Retainer Program, whose mission is to provide legal defense for individuals involved in self-defense-related incidents. Please call 866-404-5112 or email us to learn more about our AOR program.
Related Content
