#New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmean2bepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

356 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 6 months

Text

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed likely to uphold a federal law that bans gun possession for anyone subject to a domestic violence court order. If so, the decision would be a small retreat from the court's sweeping decision on gun rights last year.

From the outset Tuesday, the Justices wrestled with the consequences of their far-reaching 2022 decision, declaring that in order for a gun law to be constitutional, it has to be analogous to a law that existed at the nation's founding in the late 1700s. The question Tuesday was how precise that analog has to be.

DANGEROUS VS. RESPONSIBLE

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, told the Justices that under the court's most recent decisions, including last year's, Congress may disarm those who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens.

"There is no historical evidence" that the Second Amendment "was originally understood to prevent legislatures from disarming dangerous individuals," she said.

But, as several Justices noted, people do all kinds of irresponsible things — driving over the speed limit, putting the trash out on the wrong day — but nobody would suggest they lose their constitutional rights for that. Pressed by Chief Justice John Roberts, Prelogar agreed that the word responsible is "something of a placeholder for dangerousness."

"There's no daylight at all then between not responsible and dangerous?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked. No daylight, Prelogar agreed, adding that "our understanding of what history and tradition reflect ... is those whose possession of firearms presents an unusual danger beyond the ordinary citizen."

"Why did you use the term 'responsible' if what you meant was dangerous?" Roberts asked.

"Well, we relied on the same phrasing the Court itself used when it first articulated" the right to bear arms principle in 2008, she replied.

Most of the Court's conservatives seemed to accept that proposition, with only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas remaining skeptical. Thomas was the author of last year's broad decision — a decision so expansive and unspecific that the lower courts have interpreted it in dramatically different ways. As Justice Elena Kagan observed, "There seems to be a fair bit of division, and a fair bit of confusion about what Bruen [last year's case] means and what Bruen requires of the lower courts."

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

Challenging the federal law in Tuesday's case was Zackey Rahimi. A Texas judge stripped him of his license to have guns when it granted a domestic violence court order after Rahimi allegedly assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot, and then fired a gun at a bystander who saw the assault. After he continued firing guns in public, even after the court order, police searched his residence and found guns, magazines and ammunition. He was sentenced to six years in prison for violating the federal law that bans domestic abusers under court order from possessing guns.

Rahimi, however, continued to press his challenge to the federal law, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, declared the law unconstitutional.

Rahimi's lawyer, federal public defender Matthew Wright, struggled to defend that decision Tuesday, telling the Justices there is no law from the founding era that is analogous to this one.

"There's no history of [gun] bans. They don't exist," Wright told the court.

Justice Kagan asked if the presence of a similar ban at the time of the founding is essential after the court's decision last year in the Bruen case. If there isn't a similar ban from the founding era, "we say that the government has no right to do anything?" she asked incredulously.

"That's largely what Bruen says," Wright replied.

Wright also maintained that those accused of domestic violence have few protections in court prior to being slapped with a ban on guns.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wasn't buying that, noting that Rahimi's ex-girlfriend "did submit a sworn affidavit giving quite a lot of detail about the various threats. It's not like he just showed up and the judge said 'credible finding of violence.'"

Roberts was even more direct, asking, "You don't have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?"

Wright replied, "I would want to know what dangerous person means."

"Someone who is shooting at people," Roberts shot back.

"That's fair," a sheepish Wright conceded.

Kagan followed up: "Do you think the Congress could disarm people who are mentally ill, who've been committed to mental institutions?"

"I think maybe," Wright answered, prompting this from Kagan: "I will tell you the honest truth, Mr. Wright. I feel like you are running away from your argument because the implications of your argument are just so untenable that you have to say 'no, that is not really my argument.'"

Indeed, the Court's decision in the Rahimi case will have ripple effects. It may make lower courts more hesitant to strike down laws aimed at preventing dangerous people from having guns.

But as several Justices said Tuesday, this is the easy case. The harder ones lie ahead, among them: federal and state laws that bar convicted felons — even those convicted of non-violent crimes — from having guns.

11 notes · View notes

contemplatingoutlander · 2 years

Link

Alexandra Petri is back just when we need a little humor to manage the stress of the wrecking ball that SCOTUS has recently taken to our society regarding abortion and guns. Enjoy! 😉��

I can see how you might be confused! At least, I think that horrid screaming, silent sobbing and rending of garments indicates confusion.

You are looking at the rulings the Supreme Court has been putting out lately and wondering how they are consistent with one another. “This ruling seems like it will result in many more births. Tons of births. More births than a majority of Americans think we ought to be compelled to have, in fact!” you say. “Whereas this ruling seems like it will result in people being killed with guns. Are we excited to protect life, or aren’t we?”

This is simple. Let me draw you a chart: Here is conception, when we have decided life begins. Sacred, exquisite, beautiful life. Life, than which nothing is more precious. Life, a concept popular enough to sell as both a board game and a cereal. Life! Which everyone ought to have!

Here, we have the halcyon period during which nothing is too good for you and you must be saved and protected at all costs. Anything you want, you must have. Someone else’s body, even at risk to her life? You got it! We owe you that much. We have no way of knowing you won’t be Shakespeare, or invent foaming hand soap. Up until the moment of birth, you are a glistening orb of magical potential. You might become a president, or better yet, the man who picks the president by deciding which electoral votes get counted.

And then here is birth, after which you are on your own.

Once you have been born, you are a nuisance, and, possibly, a woman — two categories the Supreme Court generally frowns upon. The born are always asking for things. You want baby formula? Uncontaminated formula? You want people not to be able to bring guns to your school? You want to be mirandized? Can’t we go back to that lovely place when you were just an exciting concept who might grow up to be a Supreme Court justice? [...] Some complain that this will be the first generation born with fewer rights than the one preceding it. But can you blame us for limiting the rights of the born? They are just so irritating! [...] The born demand food and clothes and a roof over their heads. They object to laws passed about their bodies by people who have only the remotest, foggiest notion of what their bodies actually contain. They feel, somehow, that they should be able to make their own decisions, medical and otherwise — even the ones who are capable of conceiving! They, themselves, want to choose, not a bunch of people in robes who have been laboring under a misconception for years and now would like everyone else to, as well. And these born keep insisting they have a right to life, to liberty, to full autonomy. So needy!

Now you understand, surely. There is life — pleasant, luminous, sacred, to be honored and protected at all costs. And then comes the moment of birth, after which all you have is the unpleasant, sticky process of actually living. That hardly seems worth protecting at all.

[emphasis added]

_________________________

I took the liberty of drawing the “charts” that Alexandra Petri alluded to. The human figures in the second chart (before edits) are from Shutterstock. Sources for the stages of fetal development: 01, 02. Source for the stages of the human lifespan: 01.

#scotus #women's reproductive rights #roe v. wade #concealed gun carry #dobbs v. jackson women's health organization #new york state rifle & pistol association v. bruen #which lives are valued #alexandra petri #the washington post #humor #my charts #my edits #satire

126 notes · View notes

bighermie · 2 years

Link

#texas #new york state rifle and pistol association v. bruen #texas attorney general ken paxton #second amendment

8 notes · View notes

gettothestabbing · 2 years

Link

Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, the lawyers who successfully argued against New York’s law restricting conceal-carry gun permits, were told by Kirkland & Ellis they had to stop representing Second Amendment plaintiffs or find another firm.

#SCOTUS #Kirkland & Ellis #lawyers #attorneys #Greg Wilson #Daily Wire #Paul Clement #Erin Murphy #concealed carry #Second Amendment #New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen #may issue #NY

10 notes · View notes

cultml · 2 years

Link

#new york state rifle & pistol association v. bruen

6 notes · View notes

kp777 · 2 years

Link

BY DAHLIA LITHWICK AND MARK JOSEPH STERN

Slate

May 25, 2022

From the article:

On Tuesday, 19 children and two adults were gunned down at a school in Uvalde, Texas. The Senate will do nothing in response. It won’t pass an emergency bill to protect our children from weapons of war; little kids aren’t nearly as important to the Republican project as conservative justices.

Consider that two weeks ago, when peaceful protesters were gathering outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, the U.S Senate unanimously passed an emergency bill to protect their families. Nobody in the Senate suggested that the justices or their children arm themselves, and nobody intimated that piously offering prayers for the justices and their families was more effective than actually protecting them. From peaceful protesters. And no one suggested the existing prohibition on carrying guns within the court building or within the Capitol complex is an affront to the Second Amendment. Certainly nobody accused the Senate of “politicizing” the alleged threats against the justices. Quite the opposite. After the unanimous vote to ensure that Supreme Court justices would have federal protection from scented votive candles and hand-painted signs, senators congratulated themselves on rallying on a bipartisan basis to protect the security of important public officials.

Don’t let anyone tell you that we couldn’t have done anything to stop Tuesday’s massacre in Texas. We are in this nightmare because our broken political system produced broken laws and a broken judiciary. And that judiciary is now poised to strike down the few effective gun safety laws this system has produced.

Let us remind you that several months ago, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the most consequential case involving gun rights in more than a decade, the six conservative justices in the supermajority worried about whether their impending move to allow concealed carry everywhere in New York, excepting perhaps “sensitive places,” would sweep in college campuses, Times Square on New Year’s Eve, and crowded protests. Justice Samuel Alito pressed even harder for the right of every New Yorker to be permitted to carry a gun on New York City’s subways. The court may not actually be able to find a politically convenient moment to hand down this opinion; between a Buffalo gun massacre, Orange County church murders, and a massacre of Texas schoolchildren on Tuesday, it’s clear that there will always be another mass shooting immediately before, or on, Supreme Court opinion days.

Still, there is little doubt that in the coming weeks, the majority will strike down New York’s requirement that gun owners show “good cause” to obtain a concealed carry permit—thereby forcing the state, and states with similar measures, to hand out concealed carry licenses to anyone who wants one. (One in four Americans currently lives in such a state.)

The justices themselves won’t face the lethal consequences of their own Second Amendment rulings. Justice Antonin Scalia’s reasoning from D.C. v. Heller preemptively upholding “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms” in “government buildings” will stand, although it represented dicta and not official doctrine. And Republican senators won’t face the lethal consequences of their failures to act after Columbine, after Sandy Hook, after Parkland, and after today. The judiciary will uphold the prohibition on guns in the halls of the Congress and the Supreme Court. Indeed, the NRA just announced that guns will be banned during Donald Trump’s speech at Friday’s NRA conference.

When the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. et al. v. Bruen comes down next month, there will be millions more guns carried to more public places. That is a fact. The majority will pretend—as it did in the draft Dobbs opinion from May 2—that it is applying neutral historical and factual principles, when it will in truth be distorting the history and original meaning of constitutional language to achieve a partisan political outcome that is disfavored by vast majorities of Americans. That is because what majorities of Americans actually want doesn’t matter to them.

It doesn’t matter to some senators, either. As Sen. Chris Murphy pointed out yet again Tuesday night, the Senate unerringly chooses to do nothing about school killings. Two House-passed background-check bills have been stalled in the Senate since March 2021, where they can never and will never be passed under the current rules. Like the Supreme Court majority in Bruen, it seeks to bank on a short attention span to surf the present moment before enabling future violence.

If we cannot manage to sustain public horror and outrage about yet more slaughtered children between now and November, perhaps we can at least hold on to the public horror and outrage around six conservative jurists bantering about which college campuses in Manhattan deserve to be exempted from more weapons, or whether New York subway riders and Times Square revelers will get to be further terrorized by gun owners as more children are slaughtered.

If we cannot sustain our horror over 19 dead kids, perhaps we can remember the revolting sight of two Trump judges congratulating themselves for striking down a California law banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles to people between the ages of 18 and 20. Those under 21 are far more likely to commit violent crimes, including gun homicides, but that fact didn’t matter to the majority. Instead, Trump Judge Ryan D. Nelson compared today’s armed teenagers to “the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army.” And Trump Judge Kenneth Lee wrote that only “a minuscule percentage of the populace” abuses the right to bear arms, while most exercise their Second Amendment rights “in responsible and productive ways.”

The young adults among this “miniscule” percentage exact a deadly toll. The Buffalo shooter bought his rifle legally. He was 18. The Uvalde shooter also bought his rifle legally. He was 18. In fact, he waited until his 18th birthday to purchase it, and then murdered at least 21 people days later. One wonders: Would the parents inside the Uvalde Civic Center last night, whose screams were audible from the parking lot, be comforted to know that, actually, only “a minuscule percentage of the populace” misuses guns? That, as unfortunate as it is that their children were shot to death by an 18-year-old, that’s just not a good enough reason to stop 18-year-olds from buying deadly weapons? That the “heroism” of teenage soldiers in the Revolutionary War requires us all, nearly 250 years later, to sacrifice our own children on the altar of the Second Amendment as the price we pay for liberty?

Hold on to these images when the Bruen decision comes down, as well as the many more radical decisions that will follow it. Think about these judges, protected from the horrors they inflict on the rest of us in their well-guarded courthouses. Think about the justices, already shielded from actual danger by taxpayer-funded security, and ask yourself why they swiftly and without drama received extra protection from picketers this past month. The immiseration of women and children that comes at the end of this Supreme Court term—not just from reproductive health and gun rulings, but from the gutting of environmental protections and public health measures—should not surprise us, even if it shocks our consciences. Nor should the failure of the Senate to do a single thing to prevent the next Sandy Hook, or the next Buffalo, or the next Uvalde.

We know what is required to fix this mess. And “call your representative” is not the answer. End the filibuster. Expand the Supreme Court. Admit new states. Shift political power away from the rural whites who hold a disproportionate amount of it and toward the multiracial urban centers that make up a majority of the country. Create the truly representative democracy that people have been denied for far too long—democracy for precisely those people who receive platitudes about prayer and God’s will in lieu of meaningful public safety, dignity, and respect.

Until then, we will be at the mercy of conservative jurists and lawmakers making choices that kill us and our families. That they can still exempt themselves from these ravages isn’t a coincidence. It’s both evidence of the crime and proof that, as long as they’re in charge, the killing will never stop

#u.s. supreme court #New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. et al. v. Bruen #gun laws #gun violence

2 notes · View notes

filosofablogger · 5 months

Text

Welcome To The United States of Lunacy

Isn’t it funny (and I don’t mean in a ‘ha ha’ sort of way) that if you mention the word ‘abortion’, people are all up in arms about the “killing” of a fetus, but those same people are supportive of giving everyone the right to kill with guns. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s law that required people seeking a license to carry a handgun in public to demonstrate that they had a…

View On WordPress

#Judge Robert S Raschio #New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen #republicans vs democrats #rolling back gun laws #Second Amendment Sanctuary State #U.S. Constitution #U.S. Supreme Court

0 notes

empiricalscotus · 11 months

Text

The Highest Cites in the Land

The Supreme Court is known as the “Highest Court in the Land,” but even this highest court needs to justify its choices. Scholar Martin Shapiro referred to this universal judicial norm as part of the logic of the triad. Under this logic, judges maintain a system of trust with the public by providing seemingly neutral support for their decisions. This is why disseminating opinions to the people…

View On WordPress

#New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen #Talevski #Vaello Madero #Wooden v. United States #Yale Law Journal

0 notes

juanchoandmielnewsdesk · 1 year

Link

#texas #supreme court #second amendment #new york state rifle and pistol association v. bruen

0 notes

toshootforthestars · 2 years

Photo

“in such case, judicious marksmanship is appreciated”

(source)

#do we really have to live like this?#news #gun culture #new york state rifle and pistol association v bruen #us supreme court #second amendment #upstate new york #western new york

0 notes

zmyaro · 2 years

Text

Re. Conservative Voters And The Recent SCOTUS Decisions

(I originally wrote this for Facebook, since that is where the most conservative people I know are, but it is easy enough to x-post elsewhere.)

Since some folks missed some of these, reiterating that the Supreme Court just said:

Police cannot be sued for failing to read you your rights.

States are required to fund private religious schools.

Public school employees may lead students in prayer during school events.

States cannot require people to show “proper cause” to get a concealed carry gun permit.

States may ban abortion.

They should reconsider the rulings that currently protect contraception, same-sex sex, and same-sex marriage.

All of this is consistent with what the Republican party on the whole has supported for years (Donald Trump explicitly said while campaigning he would nominate anti-abortion, pro-gun Supreme Court Justices, for instance), so yes, if you supported politicians with these positions, you supported this happening.

I do recognize politics are imperfect, and sometimes you get stuck supporting a candidate with some positions you support and some you do not (see: me voting for Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton in the 2020 and 2016 general elections). You still need to own that you decided xe was the best option despite xer worst positions.

And to be clear, if you have exercised those rights yourself but still supported those politicians, you still supported this happening. Me having sex with a same-sex significant other would not somehow make it OK to support denying that right to others. Me marrying a same-sex SO would not somehow make it OK to support denying that right to others. My SO (or me, when it is finally available) using contraception would not somehow make it OK to support denying that right to others. My SO having an abortion would not somehow make it OK to support denying that right to others.

If you did support politicians who promised these things, but you have since had a change of heart, I am glad you changed your mind, but it is on you to let people know what you now believe if you want them to treat you differently based on that, and more importantly, it is on you to undo the harm you have supported in the past.

For myself, I try to keep a consistent set of personal values, and I am certainly open to having it pointed out (in good faith) where a contradiction needs to be reconciled, or where I am falling short. For the Facebook audience this was originally written for, my political views have been in my profile for quite some time, so hopefully none of this comes as a shock.

#Supreme Court #SCOTUS #Republicans #Conservatives #Vent #But a vent with some direction and editing!#Also unsubtly in response to certain members of my extended family #Dobbs v. Jackson #Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization #New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen #New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v. Bruen #Vega v. Tekoh #Roe v. Wade #Planned Parenthood v. Casey #Griswold v. Connecticut #Lawrence v. Texas #Obergefell v. Hodges

0 notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

A group of House Democrats called for legislation on Monday that would add four seats to the Supreme Court, lamenting a “ultra right-wing” branch that just overturned the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights.

The eight lawmakers cited recent Supreme Court decisions that rolled back Miranda rights, threw out a New York gun control law and allowed religion to surface in schools — as well as the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that overturned the right to abortion in Roe — in saying there was a need to add new Justices to the Court.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), the lead sponsor of the 2021 Judiciary Act, called the current makeup “a Supreme Court at crisis with itself and with our democracy” where “basic freedoms are under assault” from the 6-3 conservative supermajority on the bench.

The Supreme Court isn’t susceptible to the popular vote the way Congress is, Johnson said, and it has used that fact to amass power. “It’s making decisions that usurp the power of the legislative and executive branches,” he said.

Facing Republican opposition and some Democratic skepticism, the bill has little chance of becoming law, but it illustrates the deep anger among Progressive Democrats about the Court's direction under three conservative Justices nominated by former-President Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Those three Justices have radically altered the direction of the Court, which now has twice as many conservative Justices as liberal ones. Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, a previous swing vote who had been nominated to the court by a Republican, while Barrett replaced liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Adding to Democratic anger, a GOP Senate blocked former-President Obama’s last nominee to the court, Merrick Garland, who is now the Attorney General. Gorsuch ended up being nominated to the court in place of Garland.

Introduced last year, the Judiciary Act has not progressed in Congress.

Some Democrats wary of the proposal are concerned that expansion would open the court up for Republicans to push more of their nominees into the openings.

“The nightmare scenario of GOP court-packing is already upon us,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.). “That’s how they got this far-right 6-3 majority in the first place.”

Lawmakers at Monday’s press conference, hosted by the Take Back the Court Action Fund, blamed Trump and the conservative legal movement for enabling a partisan court.

Republican politicians made controlling the judicial branch part of their platform, said Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), adding that the court has “gone rogue” and “become a radical institution.”

The lawmakers also emphasized that the longevity of the lifelong terms the sitting Justices are now serving makes action to expand the court more urgent.

Of 72-year-old conservative Justice Samuel Alito, Johnson said, “You can see the gleam in his eye as he thinks about what he wants to do to decimate the rights of people and put us back in the Dark Ages.”

Trump-nominated Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh, in their 50s, are “gonna be there for a while,” Johnson said.

Congress has changed the number of seats on the nation’s highest court seven times in the nation’s history. The new proposal would bring the total seat count to 13, meaning a decision from the court would need a 7-6 majority rather than the present 5-4.

Reps. Andy Levin (D-Mich.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) were also at the conference, along with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who sponsored the bill in the Senate, and a handful of progressive activists.

71 notes · View notes

contemplatingoutlander · 8 months

Text

"Far from being exceptional in American history, gun-control regulations are the default. If 'Bruen' was designed to nullify the constitutional basis for many gun laws, it ought to fail."

--Robert J. Spitzer, political science professor emeritus at SUNY Cortland

Robert J. Spitzer, professor emeritus at SUNY Cortland outlines the early--and plentiful--history of gun regulation laws in early American history. Consequently, Clarence Thomas's 2022 Bruen decision might not be the disaster for gun control that some people have thought. Below are some excerpts from the article.

In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:

"That no man do sell or give any Indians any piece, shot, or powder, or any other arms offensive or defensive, upon pain of being held a traitor to the colony and of being hanged as soon as the fact is proved, without all redemption."

After that early example of gun control came many more laws placing restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. If guns have always been part of American society, so have gun laws. This fact might come as a surprise to some gun-rights advocates, who seem to believe that America’s past was one of unregulated gun ownership. That view received a big assist in 2022, when the Supreme Court declared in "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen" that the constitutionality of modern gun laws depends on whether they are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In other words, the constitutional standard for any modern gun law boils down to whether you can find a good precedent for it back in the 1700s or 1800s. The advocates’ assumption is that such precedents are few and far between, but thanks to the work of researchers and the digitization of archival material, thousands of old gun laws, of every imaginable variety, are now available for reference. Far from being exceptional in American history, gun-control regulations are the default. If "Bruen" was designed to nullify the constitutional basis for many gun laws, it ought to fail. [...] Throughout this long period in the history of the republic, up until the beginning of the 20th century, gun laws placed conditions or restrictions on weapons access for a wide variety of citizens—in particular, indentured servants, vagrants, non-Protestants, those who refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the government, felons, foreigners, minors, and those under the influence of alcohol. Numerous laws regulated hunting practices, as well as firearms’ carry, use, storage, and transportation; regulated the manufacture, inspection, storage, and sale of firearms; imposed gun licensing; and restricted dangerous or unusual weapons. Despite the Thomas opinion’s claim that “the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited,” some local authorities outlawed the discharge of firearms in or near towns, buildings, or roads, as well as after dark, on Sundays, at public gatherings, and in cemeteries. In some jurisdictions, any use of a firearm that wasted gunpowder was also an offense. [...] In the post-revolutionary 1800s, as rising violent crime led more people to arm themselves, a total of 42 states (plus the District of Columbia) enacted laws against concealed carry. Three more did so in the early 1900s, so that the total included almost every state in the Union. As many states from the 1700s to 1900s also enacted some form of weapons-licensing law. That’s not all. Over that same period, at least 22 states restricted any gun carrying, including of long guns. Moreover, across the entire period, three-quarters of the states had laws either against “brandishing”—waving a gun around in a menacing or threatening manner—or merely having a weapon on display in public. [...] In addition, even though for much of its history America was an agrarian country...its lawmakers and enforcers were inventive and determined about ensuring public safety. When they perceived a threat to that order from firearms, they passed laws to restrict or prevent them. And back then, by and large, no court struck those laws down. That is what is truly consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. So if we accept the originalist premise of "Bruen," the actual result should be to render a broad array of gun regulations constitutional. [color emphasis added]

#american history #gun control #america's original gun control #robert j. spitzer #bruen decision #the atlantic

91 notes · View notes

bighermie · 1 year

Link

2K notes · View notes

freetheshit-outofyou · 1 year

Text

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen knocks down another unconstitutional law. '"Under the analytical framework established in Bruen, the government simply has not met its burden to support the finding that restrictions on the purchasing of firearms by 18-to-20-year-olds is part of our nation's history and tradition," Payne wrote, later concluding that because the statutes and regulations at the center of the dispute "are not consistent with our nation's history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand."

Payne noted that other rights enshrined in the Constitution, including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments "vest before the age of 21," and said no federal appellate court or the Supreme Court "has squarely determined that the Second Amendment's rights vest at age 21."

"If the court were to exclude 18-to-21-year olds from the Second Amendment's protection, it would impose limitations on the Second Amendment that do not exist with other constitutional guarantees," he said.'

#2a #pro 2a #firearms #your rights

40 notes · View notes