…Rahimi exposes two different problems with Bruen: The first problem is that its command to courts to measure contemporary gun regulations by the yardstick of “historical analogues” yields a profoundly subjective test that will lead principled judges acting reasonably to reach diametrically opposed conclusions about the same laws. As Rahimi makes clear, whether a historical example is sufficiently “analogous” will almost always be in the eye of the beholder.
After all, if “dangerousness” laws aren’t a sufficient analogy for § 922(g)(8), which exists entirely because of the danger those subject to DV-related restraining orders pose to their intimate partner, what could be other than a DV-specific restriction from 1791 (or 1868)? To illustrate the point, there have been, according to Professor Jake Charles, seven district court decisions since Bruen about § 922(n), which bars those under felony indictment from new gun acquisitions. Those seven courts have divided 4-3, largely by disagreeing about the relevance of the claimed historical analogies.
The second problem is that, even if it were possible to articulate a more objective way of identifying historical analogues, this is just no way to ask courts to interpret the Constitution. American society in 1791, and even in 1868, did not recognize domestic violence as the standalone moral and legal scourge that we understand it to be today (the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was not ratified until 1920). …
And the measure of when Second Amendment rights can be infringed ought not to depend upon the persuasiveness to individual judges of forced (and inevitably flawed) analogies to a time in American history in which people lived radically different lives—and in which, among other things, white men held a monopoly over government offices; and the technology was such that a single individual would have been hard-pressed to use a firearm to kill dozens of others in a single shooting. This may help to explain Justice Kavanaugh’s separate concurring opinion in Bruen, which Chief Justice Roberts joined, which tried to articulate limits to the majority’s analysis. But at least thus far, those limits have proven … elusive.
Simply put, the more that lower courts read Bruen to yield a practical absolutism to the Second Amendment by resisting what sure appear to be apt analogies, the more it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to either confirm that that’s what the six-Justice majority intended, or to clarify that, to the contrary, governments may reasonably regulate firearms in contexts in which they have especially persuasive justifications for doing so, even if no similar justifications existed at some random prior point in American history.
— Steve Vladeck in Bruen’s Increasingly Troubling Aftermath
a lever gun and two six shooters got the job done then.
we have less need to defend?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know you are currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, it’s simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link…. https://incomeboost2.blogspot.com/
Gosh, you’re right…”Grace Stevens” sounds just like “Mike”.
Really, Dan/TTAG? My perfectly valid comments continued to get modded and even outright blocked, but this spam keeps getting through no problem?
The ONLY possible conclusion is that it is the INTENT of the site owners, moderators, and authors to make the “moderation policy” as subjective, opaque, inconsistent, and ever-changing as possible. They don’t WANT us to know what the policy is, why it is enforced (or ignored) so haphazardly, and makes so little sense.
I suspect they enjoy the sense of power, and get off on ‘being the man’. F*** ’em. I say what I want, and they can ‘moderate’ ’til Hell freezes over . . . and they are also welcome to osculate my anal spincter.
So be it.
Either we’re forced to become routinely c-r-e-a-t-i-v-e with the spellings of words to fly under WordPress’ filters, or we simply visit the site less. As for me, I’ve already cut my page views on TTAG over the past year down to 50%. As in, I don’t even click on half the articles anymore.
Think I’ll take the rest of the week off. No need to post any further thoughts, if the WordPress bots have been turned loose again and will shut them down. Enjoy your week. See you Monday.
Haz, this is not like you.
Grace is reporting (actually, forwarding) an interesting take on “historical analogies”, another look into the mind of people who simply want law to be situational, and easily morphed into whatever is convenient. Grace is not writing the instant article.
I don’t think Haz is reacting to Grace’s article, he is reacting to TTAG absolute SHIT “moderation” policy – which ISN’T “moderation” and most certainly isn’t a “policy”, and is applied with all the consistency of dacian the demented trying to construct a coherent sentence.
He’s not beefing Grace, he’s beefing TTAG’s idiot “policies” – and I 100% agree with him. And is it DOUBLY insulting when the moderators trot out their absolute LIE that it is “just the WordPress filters and algorithms”. That is an absolute (and absolutely STOOPID) lie – any moron who ever took a course in programming knows damn well that is NOT how either filters or algorithms work.
Filters and algorithms can be stupid (frequently are), but they are CONSISTENTLY stupid. We all know that a word that gets one commenter’s post “moderated” frequently appears in THE VERY NEXT DAMN COMMENT, with no “moderation”.
TTAG has the right to moderate their damn blog any freakin’ way they choose. What they CAN’T do is LIE about the moderation with impunity. Whenever you catch them at this bullshit, CALL THEM OUT ON IT. Perhaps, just maybe, these chickenshit “moderators” will eventually get sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it . . . or AT LEAST stop fucking LYING about it.
And yeah, Dan, I’m lookin’ at you.
sounds like a cam girl.
RE: “The first problem is that its command to courts to measure contemporary gun regulations by the yardstick of “historical analogues” yields a profoundly subjective test that will lead principled judges acting reasonably to reach diametrically opposed conclusions about the same laws.”
Never mind falling for more and more Second Amendment dissection…The historical analogues of Gun Control are rooted in Racism and Genocide.
Playing tit for tat games with Gun Control in courts like many on this forum enjoy not only provides standing for Gun Control it will eventually backfire and the day in and day out insane ideas to disarm America (includes you) coming from Gun Control zealots will eventually stick…All thanks to today’s history doesn’t matter gun owning slackers who think Racism and Genocide are just words.
Like it’s sidekicks racism and genocide Gun Control has no place whatsoever in America and needs to be abolished. And to do that Gun Control needs to be Defined by its history confirmed Historical Analogues.
Steve who? and why would I care what he says?
because I don’t
He’s a hard left law professor at UT Law School. He’s just upset that Thomas’ opinion actually means what it says (no balancing test), and so he’s desperate for a “do-over” that would return 2A rights to second class status.
thanks that explains why I don’t care what he has to say. with all that law schoolin one would think he had been taught the meaning of “shall” in legaleze?
Yup, Steve figures let’s find any fault lines that may be in Bruen and get the dynamite. If it crumbles we win. If it holds together it is a continuation of our incremental approach to dismantling the 2A.
lkb…Is ho-hum all you got? Well it ain’t ho-hum where the nutty professer is coming from.
Translation: “Surely the Supreme Court can’t have meant that the second amendment means exactly what it says. Right? Riiight????????”
*Panic ensues as realization slowly dawns.*
“*Panic ensues as realization slowly dawns.*”
That’s what I mean when I say “Wait until they realize just how bad that decision was for them”, they will go into full-panic mode.
While that’s first-class fun to watch, desperate people often don’t think straight and do things they ordinarily wouldn’t do.
Personally, I think they will dig their heels in harder and expend every effort to slow-walk this as long as they can… 🙁
See NY and 2nd circuit stays of injunctions for into into chapter 1. Gov is already trying to reword some of the new law to moot attempt. Going to be a wild spring to summer.
*intro gotta love spell check
I decided long ago that was likely to be the ultimate solution to 2A questions, a new Amendment which states just as concisely as 2A itself, “the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, no more and no less. It is not subject to interpretation.”
“a new Amendment which states just as concisely as 2A itself,”
Maybe, “The right of the people to be armed, at any time, anywhere, is absolute; not subject to the opinion of the people.”
Add “or whims of lawyers and judges”.
Liberty is soooooo scary!!
So black powder grenades we’re not a thing re 6 people killed at a time? They found a thing to complain about but why should rights be stripped off a person on allegations? I think the problem they are trying to define may lay elsewhere.
“So black powder grenades we’re not a thing re 6 people killed at a time?”
Look what common fireworks and a thrift-shop pressure cooker did in Boston… 🙁
Wasn’t going to go there but yes that is the logical current analog that is stupidly easy. The ignorance of history and lack of imagination is honestly more scary than the terrorists at this point.
It really was kind of a miracle that the casualties from the boston islamist attack were not higher. There’s parts of the world attacks like that scores of people every year.
Whole lot easier to carry a pressure cooker than a muzzle-loading 12-pounder mountain howitzer, but it certainly doesn’t have the range that grape shot does!
Not to mention how those wood frame houses of “that era” could easily hve their two small entrances blocked then the whole place fired…. this was a common tactic in urban house to house fighting, as happened on 19th April 1775 in Menotomy, along the road from Concord back to Boston. Dozens of citizens burned to death when the Brits were caught in their crossfire as they tried getting back along the Concord Road to get to Boston. Any time they were fired upon from a house, they swarmed the place, killing all they counld, then fired it to take care of the rest. Nasty bidniss. That was in 1775, during “the time period in view” for Bruen.
There also always remained the option of securing a barrel of gunpowder, placing itstrategically, then touching it off all at once instead of using it to drive one ball at a time. Weapon of mass destruction? You bet.
then there were the Grenadiers and their very nasty grenades….. always present on any battlefield and/or any other “action” to reduce the size and effectiveness of any opponent or target.
At last, some honesty from POTG.
It is fascinating how many POTG are celebrating this decision allowing this gentleman to have continued possession of lethal weapons.
Clearly, POTG think Mr. Rahimi should be allowed to have firearms, and it’s a travesty that he has been deprived of his civil liberties to own firearms.
So just who do the POTG want to make sure has access to firearms?
“Despite the restriction to which Rahimi agreed, he was involved in five Texas shootings between Dec. 2020 and Jan. 2021. In one, he fired multiple shots into the residence of a person to whom he had sold narcotics. The next day, Rahimi was in a car accident; he shot the other driver, fled the scene, and then returned to another vehicle and shot the other driver’s car. A few weeks later, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. Then two weeks after that, he fired multiple shots into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant.
When law enforcement caught up with Rahimi while executing a warrant, they found a rifle and a pistol in his home. Rahimi was then charged and convicted of unlawfully possessing the guns. Rahimi challenged his conviction on the grounds that the charging law —18 U.S. Code § 922— was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment”
Their response clearly illustrates that most POTG would rather have violent criminals like Mr. Rahimi continue to have unfettered access to firearms in our society.
Thanks for the honesty, how refreshing.
No. Rahimi could (and should) have been charged under any number of other laws. That the government chose to charge him under a law that is unconstitutional only points to the fact that the prosecutors were lazy.
someone burned a thousand calories twisting their brain in knots.
“he should be locked up” is so much less effort.
“Rahimi could (and should) have been charged under any number of other laws“
Rahimi was charged, convicted and sentenced under state law:
“Zackey Rahimi, after being charged with various state offenses, pleaded guilty to a violation of federal law for possessing a firearm in contravention of a restraining order. The district court ordered Rahimi’s federal sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently with certain state-case sentences but to run consecutively with other state-case sentences because the acts involved in the latter were not “relevant conduct” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Rahimi appeals, challenging the finding that certain acts were not relevant conduct. We find no clear error and affirm.“
“That the government chose to charge him under a law that is unconstitutional only points to the fact that the prosecutors were lazy“
It wasn’t the prosecutors who were lazy…
I thought you were an attorney but it seems you failed to do even the most basic research.
” …most POTG would rather have violent criminals like Mr. Rahimi continue to have unfettered access to firearms in our society.”
Most. Citation needed.
Miner speak with forket tongue out of two sides of same mouth.
First he touts his conviction for the actual CRIMES he committed, a separate issue from hs possession of the firearm he had. The POINT is he SHOULD have been charged for those crimes, as folks were harmed. His simple possession of the firearm was NOT the issue. What WAS at issue is what he DID with tht gun he DID have.. and should have been able to have. THAT is te core issue here.
NO ONE HERE is suggesting he was right to MISUSE that gun once he rightly possessed it.
“The POINT is he SHOULD have been charged for those crimes”
The POINT is he WAS charged for those crimes, convicted and sentenced as well.
And because he had demonstrated his inability to discharge the awesome responsibility of firearms ownership, the federal government charged him with the possession charge.
I’m honestly surprised by many people commenting so ‘enthusiastically’ about a case and a criminal they’ve done zero research regarding.
If he is convicted of the crimes he was accused of, he is no longer allowed to personally possess guns during his incarceration, correct?
Neither you, nor your idiot buddy, dacian the demented, have ever chosen to respond to a basic question: What OTHER rights are you comfortable having infringed AFTER the convicted person has served their sentence? Should they be allowed to vote (most states do restore voting rights after sentence is fully completed)? Go to church? Exercise their right to free speech or to petition their government for redress of grievances? Should the government be permitted to quarter troops in their house? No longer have any right to counsel?
Why are you so f***ing stupid??
This POTG thinks if he shouldn’t be allowed a firearm as guaranteed by the Constitution, the legitimate, Constitutional way to accomplish that is to lock the mofo up until it is deemed OK for him to possess a firearm again. Since it is demonstrated hundreds, maybe thousands of times each day that anyone can acquire a firearm illegally in a very short time and probably for less than retail, including prohibited persons, that seems preferable to endlessly whining about perfectly predictable court rulings.
“It is fascinating how many POTG are celebrating this decision allowing this gentleman to have continued possession of lethal weapons.”
Who? How many? Name one.
we would rather dangerous criminals be in jail and people not in jail be left alone. if the man cannot be trusted with a firearm he probably shouldn’t out in the world with access to Kitchen knives, gas cans, and vehicles weighing thousands of pounds capable of going a hundred miles an hour. All of those things have been used in mass killings.
Most gals(and a few weenieboys) are beat up or kilt by the “other”. As mentioned by you. Kinda reminds me of the Dims of ILLannoy who blame me for the actions of lunatic mass murderers. Mao would be proud🙄
An unknown person killed a whole buncha folks in NOLA in the 70s – the weapon used was a quart of lighter fluid…
Not to forget the eight folks killed in Manhattan by the lethal force application of a rented Home Depot picmup trusk.
It is NEVER the arrow, it is ALWAYS the Indian using it.
Another confirmation bias presentation by Miner49er, with further substantiation of his inability to comprehend what he reads, and with his very own flavor of out of context fruit cake methodology to troll with.
Half convinced his posting got farmed out to an intern or offshore the quality of his arguments nosedived from even last year.
#3 he/she/it is brain damaged and gets paid. not much but paid. probably in cheese puffs
sorry hate it when things post out of order.
miner is a troll. He hangs here for one of two reasons. Trolling is a recognized symptom of mental illness. Want proof of that. dacian. Nuff said.
Or he’s being paid. Only two choices.
Whatever point you are trying to make is a fail. After the first incident he should of been held in jail without bail. Law enforcement and the court systems failed, not gun laws. This man has no business roaming in free society.
lie much ?
nobody here said they wanted that criminal out and about armed.
Would he be any less separated from the guns if arrested for the bullshit he did? I’m sure he could have been arrested for discharging a firearm in city limits, or reckless endangerment. No need to ensnare someone else.
Simple fix. Repeal the 19th Amendment. A lot of problems would just go away.
Then return selection of senators to state legislatures.
Maybe a need to own property or be a net tax contributor to vote.
I’d trade keeping the 19th for a repeal of one of 19th century populism’s worst “reforms” – the 17th. April 8, 1913 is the day our Republic began it’s continuing spiral downward toward tyranny – direct election of senators was and is a terrible idea.
Let’s just repeal both.
Agree 100%. Direct elections for Senate should be repealed. The States should determine who they send to Washington to represent the State.
If you want to fix things and have the power, repeal the 16th. Starve the bastards out!
We need to go beyond repealing the 19th Amendment. You also need to be a land owner, with at least a condo. Also if you don’t have skin in the game you do not get to vote, IE any kind of Government Assistance.
The author, Steve Vladeck, is a University of Texas law professor. He is extremely woke as he is a prep school graduate, graduated from Amherst, and is a sorry product of the anti-American university Yale law school. His knowledge of American history is minimal but his belief in Marxian theory is enormous. He like most of his woke sheep, wants America disarmed for two reasons. One so that gangs and cartels can enforce Democrat elections, AND two to make it easier when Chinese “peace keepers” are brought in by the Democrats as a last resort.
“Let ‘um Come” Brother, Let ‘um come”….
Yup, the Democrats miss their Military Arm, the Klu Klux Klan. They tried to replace them with ANTIFA, but that failed due to an armed citizenry.
The ONLY ‘problem’ with the Rahimi thing is that he was not already behind bars for what he was doing in the first place. If it were not for the Democrats’ need to keep criminals OUT of prison, this situation never would have even been a question.
Keep the animals in their cages and we would not have so much of an issue.
But, but, but, BUT–it’s so INHUMANE!!! To whom? The predator or the prey?
To the DemonCraps: some animals are MORE equal than others. Keeping these animals out of their cages keeps them in their cushy seats of power.
“The ONLY ‘problem’ with the Rahimi thing is that he was not already behind bars for what he was doing in the first place.“
Would you believe that you are wrong?
Rahimi was already in prison because he is a violent criminal who most people think should not have access to firearms.
How fascinating that the comments on this article are unanimous in their view he was unjustly denied the right to possess firearms.
“Zackey Rahimi, after being charged with various state offenses, pleaded guilty to a violation of federal law for possessing a firearm in contravention of a restraining order. The district court ordered Rahimi’s federal sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently with certain state-case sentences but to run consecutively with other state-case sentences because the acts involved in the latter were not “relevant conduct” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Rahimi appeals, challenging the finding that certain acts were not relevant conduct. We find no clear error and affirm.”
Violent criminals and vicious domestic abusers certainly appreciate your help in ensuring they’ll have ready access to lethal weapons, bravo!
And? Criminals always have easy access to firearms.
Unanimous? I don’t think that word means what you think it does.
Your trolling really has declined miner.
If he were behind bars then he would not have been where he was.
Exactly. He was obviously out on bail after having been CHARGED with various state law crimes. AFTER he was charged, he plead guilty to the federal charge of violating a consented to restraining order. In other words, he was PRESUMED INNOCENT of the state law crimes, and thus, but for the restraining order, he had a right to keep and bear arms. If the deprivation of arms under the restraining order was unconstitutional, then the federal charge evaporates. so what we are REALLY seeing is an overly generous bail policy that failed to keep this maniac behind bars, remanded without bail.
So, once again, he served his sentences, correct????
So exactly what rights would you consider transactional, and which would you consider absolute, and what is your basis for that determination?
How about, if he is TRULY such a dangerous predator, we execute him, or throw his ass in jail for life? Do we let him vote? Do we let him have a right to counsel? Is he entitled to free speech?
Sweet Baby Jeebus on a fucking nuclear-powered pogo stick, you pathetic @$$clown, a rational person would consider your absolute lack of consistency embarrassing, but you are obviously incapable of rationality OR embarrassment.
Mark Twain had your number, buttnugget: “He is of no use above the ground; he should be beneath it, inspiring the cabbages.”
Government in toto has never had the authority to deny anyone the right to arms. Neither have “the people”. Try to grasp the meaning of “a right”.
after the whole two step process the idea a judge may interpret the law differently is a problem? double standard much?
Steve should start his history lesson with the Federalist Papers and go from there.
Restraining orders are stupid.
As if the state was too lazy to prosecute the attempted assault so they write you a note that says “if you do it again you’ll be in big trouble!”
Rather than actually enforce existing laws they prefer to keep adding new ones that also won’t be enforced. My favorite example is cell phones and driving. Nobody wanted to enforce the existing distracted driver laws so they went and made new, more specific ones that also go unenforced. You can keep adding tools to your toolbox but the house won’t get built until to start using them.
Double Secret Probation
As gun controllers often love to say about their own faulty laws… “That’s a feature, not a bug.”
Sadly, a group of people elected or appointed, enacting legislation that regulates the lives of millions of people without any Proven Justification for doing so; is an infringement. To compound the wrongful decisions being made; is the fact that these decisions are largely driven by wealthy people who have bought and paid for those in the position to enact such legislation. This IS NOT how a Democracy works for the benefit of the people. It is a MOCKERY of our Republic, and CONSTITUTION.
Vladeck is upset that Bruen makes it easy for pro-2A jurists to strike down even the most reasonable and well-founded gun laws if they lack historical analogues. Well, all I have to say is that it’s their own fault, his and all the other left-wing, anti-2A legal academics who produced the anti-2A judges who for decades twisted every nuance, balancing test, and judgement call allowed to them to uphold any law, rule, regulation, or practice that made it harder to own a gun in America. Even after Heller and MacDonald they pretended that, if it involves guns, and the government thought it reasonable, then by golly it was. So now you get no balancing test, because we know your give no weight to citizens’ natural right to bear arms, no trust placed in your judgement, because we know your judgement always sides against the rights of the people.
“Well, all I have to say is that it’s their own fault, his and all the other left-wing, anti-2A legal academics who produced the anti-2A judges who for decades twisted every nuance, balancing test, and judgement call allowed to them to uphold any law, rule, regulation, or practice that made it harder to own a gun in America.”
Exactly. They refused to be reasonable, and got bitch-slapped by the High court for their insolence and temper-tantrums.
Act like a petulant child, get treated like one…
And now for the whining, crying, and temper tantrums. Up end it will build a lot of precedent against various schemes of gun control.
This was a pretty dumb article, as it’s just not about Bruen, but Heller, McDonald and Caetano. The Supreme Court has done all the leg work and Judges just need to read these recent opinions.
The other issue is who are “The People”? The government argues that “The People” only refers to the law abiding and not to anyone else (sorry traffic ticket, you lost all of your rights). The Supreme Court has rejected this argument and so have several lower courts. The bottom line is that you can’t take away people’s fundamental enumerated rights without a criminal conviction. This renders most prohibitions of arms from free people 100% unconstitutional.
As a side note, the period to consider is 1791 as that was when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was ratified. Courts can only look forward if a later law confirms what was understood at the time of the founding, just like they can only look prior to 1791 for the same confirmation.
The government’s attempt to use the ban on arms for Catholics, Tory’s, Native Americans and Slaves to advance a gun control agenda is not only desperate but simply repugnant.
“The bottom line is that you can’t take away people’s fundamental enumerated rights without a criminal conviction. This renders most prohibitions of arms from free people 100% unconstitutional.”
Truer words were never spoken.
We would be wise to recognize, however, that the Ruling Class prioritizes what they want over timeless righteous standards such as you stated above. Sure: government has no righteous authority to deny rights to citizens without a criminal conviction. And a rapist has no right to rape women–yet rapists attack women every day.
The simple fact of the matter is that a huge number of people will simply take what they want if they are able to do so, even if what they want violates the human dignity and rights of others. Since there is no magic which removes this propensity from the people who comprise our government, government often violates our human dignity and rights. Hence the countless injustices which we see our government perpetrating on citizens.
Steve Vladeck was right on the money so to speak with this article. To compare life in the late 1700’s to life in the 21st Century is ludicrous and outright ridiculous especially when it comes to gun laws in a modern society with all of its problems some of which were not even recognized or did not even exist in the 1700’s.
It all boils down to a shouting match between Conservatives who want zero gun laws and have a total lack of empathy for human life and the Liberals who want to ban everything without any exceptions. Both racial philosophies result in the usual political gridlock of nothing getting done and thousands of people dying needlessly in a country that is now in the process of disintegrating socially and politically. The U.S. unfortunately will be the first to lose all of its freedoms and the threat is all to real from extreme Right Wing Racist Fascists like Ron-De-Insane-ous who is hell bent on creating a one party dictatorship of the Far Right complete with Nazi style book burning and secret police spying on anyone who does not tow the Hiterlite party line.
“To compare life in the late 1700’s to life in the 21st Century is ludicrous and outright ridiculous especially when it comes to First Amendment rights in a modern society with all of its problems some of which were not even recognized or did not even exist in the 1700’s.”
Dacian, from now on you are only allowed to express your opinions through quill pen and parchment, or a hand-set printing press. No more internet for you.
And since free expression of ideas is problematic in this modern age, you must first submit your writings to an unelected government commission which will make the proper alterations to your screeds to conform to societal norms.
Also 4th amendment only applies to letters and physical documents so time to open up that internet search history for all to see. Nothing to hide right?
Dacian already does what you are prescribing, since he is being paid and handed the “SCRIPT” to “COPY” from!!!
It does not matter what Liberals or Conservatives want with gun control. The Founders of this country and the documents that govern it are very clear, there will be no gun control. The Founders have it right, a free society is not a safe society but much better than any other alternative. I agree 100%.
You misspelled ” I’m a Troll; please scroll past my drivel”
If that is truly how you feel, which I doubt, the Amendment process awaits you. But unless Amended, the BOR is the law of the land AS WRITTEN, not as you or any other jackass would like it to be “interpreted”.
About the only real problem that has been spawned by the Bruen decision is the ability, so far, of woke bottom feeding officials to circumvent it.
They’re still banning certain types of forks for making people fat. Do you really need the enhanced eating ability afforded by that that black assault spork with the tines that go up?
I agree that in the Bruen case, SCOTUS shouldn’t have told lower courts to judge by “historical analogues,” because that’s too vague and subjective.
The Supreme Court should have ordered lower courts to invalidate all gun control laws based on these 14 words of the 2nd Amendment: “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” You can’t get much clearer than “shall not be infringed,” and yet the Supreme Court managed to muddy the waters again! They should have just told lower courts that “shall not be infringed” means exactly that, “shall not be infringed” (and “the people” means “the people,” not the militia, not the government, but “the people,” all of the people, including people using medicinal marijuana).
What the 5th Circuit’s Ruling on this Really Means.
That’s the most well-reasoned video presentation I’ve seen in weeks — good job posting it for us!
When Your Sheriffs Tell the ATF They’re On Their Own.
“Add “or whims of lawyers and judges”. ”
Thinking “absolute” and “the people” covered the waterfront, but how ’bout this?
“The right of the people to be armed, at any time, anywhere, is absolute; not subject to the opinion of any person or entity, no how, no way, ever.”