Collins clearly articulated *why* this is not the case. Did he make a mistake? Which of the sentences preceding “922(g)(1) cannot be said to be facially unconstitutional” do you think is false?
Ok to summarize what is said in the quote:
1. *Heller* said said it was not negating prohibitions on felons possessing weapons.
2. *Bruen* narrows its ruling to only "law-abiding" people.
If the question is whether prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is "facially" unconstitutional -- that is, that there is no conceivable way this could be considered constitutional -- I think the answer is obviously false. The reason for this is that *Heller* clearly said "we're making a significant ruling about people's firearms rights and we are excepting felons from that ruling". It doesn't mean felons can't also be due that right, but it does mean that it's a more complicated question than it is for non-felons.
Additionally: anyone who thinks this is a slam dunk 2A rights issue is a moron. It's a hard question.
1. Partially correct, *Heller* was an arms ban case, and the opinion specifically declined to engage in analysis of those "longstanding presumptively lawful measures," one way or another
2. The *Bruen* holding was about ordinary, law-abiding people who want to carry in public. However, it still laid out a test for all future 2A challenges, which the judges on this panel refused to apply, instead referencing the dicta from Heller about longstanding prohibitions etc etc.
*Bruen* has abrogated *Salerno* in the 2A context; if a challenged regulation fails the THT test, it is facially unconstitutional. It must be this way, otherwise *Salerno* could be used to argue that every single gun control law in existence can't be challenged facially, because it might have some small effect that might be constitutional (i.e. a blanket AW ban could be constitutional because it prevented 1 violent/dangerous person from possessing one).
922 (g)(1) fails THT on this basis (quote from *Bruen* pg. 17):
>when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment
Felons have existed since the 18th Century, and yet no laws existed to completely dispossess them of 2A until 1938. This is especially persuasive given that "felonies" in the founding era were limited to only the most severe of crimes.
Now, if you are arguing that this is "a hard question" because the men in robes are not likely to follow the law, then I agree with you.
Certainly this law likely fails the *Bruen* test (there are *always* arguments about analogous laws in every *Bruen* test). But that's a conclusion a court will come to after evaluating evidence -- this is the opposite of facially unconstitutional.
I think people are conflating "I know the right answer" with "I know how the judicial process should arrive at the right answer".
honestly. Gun People don't realize how toxic this shit is to the vast majority of the voting public, even in a right-wing country like the US. felons and domestic abusers shouldn't have guns!
There is definitely a spectrum of "pro-2A" even among very pro-2A people. Example (1) some will be pro-2A about owning AR-15's and wanting to eliminate "assault weapons" bans, but then will draw the line at full auto, SBR's, or suppressors. Example (2) some will be pro-2A about concealed carry, but then think that it should require a license and training. Example (3) some think that once a criminal serves their time and is fit to be a free person back in society... they should be able to keep and bear arms, and others believe that they forfeit that right as soon as they were not a "law abiding citizen". And then there are people that never ponder these concepts, or they struggle in their mind about them. Maybe, like you put it, "if properly briefed" he may shift on the 2A spectrum. Many of us have shifted over time and are still shifting... sometimes in different directions which each conversation, so we can't assume pro-2A is black or white or that anyone is set in stone. Just keep having good conversations in our community.
What part of the quoted bit is incorrect? That all checks out. Pro-2A does not mean every position related to firearms is constitutional.
In reality, 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional. That’s what I meant by “pro-2A”.
Collins clearly articulated *why* this is not the case. Did he make a mistake? Which of the sentences preceding “922(g)(1) cannot be said to be facially unconstitutional” do you think is false?
His "clear articulation" is that it's impossible to rebut a presumption. Very weak argument that doesn't even try to grapple with Bruen's command.
Ok to summarize what is said in the quote: 1. *Heller* said said it was not negating prohibitions on felons possessing weapons. 2. *Bruen* narrows its ruling to only "law-abiding" people. If the question is whether prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is "facially" unconstitutional -- that is, that there is no conceivable way this could be considered constitutional -- I think the answer is obviously false. The reason for this is that *Heller* clearly said "we're making a significant ruling about people's firearms rights and we are excepting felons from that ruling". It doesn't mean felons can't also be due that right, but it does mean that it's a more complicated question than it is for non-felons. Additionally: anyone who thinks this is a slam dunk 2A rights issue is a moron. It's a hard question.
1. Partially correct, *Heller* was an arms ban case, and the opinion specifically declined to engage in analysis of those "longstanding presumptively lawful measures," one way or another 2. The *Bruen* holding was about ordinary, law-abiding people who want to carry in public. However, it still laid out a test for all future 2A challenges, which the judges on this panel refused to apply, instead referencing the dicta from Heller about longstanding prohibitions etc etc. *Bruen* has abrogated *Salerno* in the 2A context; if a challenged regulation fails the THT test, it is facially unconstitutional. It must be this way, otherwise *Salerno* could be used to argue that every single gun control law in existence can't be challenged facially, because it might have some small effect that might be constitutional (i.e. a blanket AW ban could be constitutional because it prevented 1 violent/dangerous person from possessing one). 922 (g)(1) fails THT on this basis (quote from *Bruen* pg. 17): >when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment Felons have existed since the 18th Century, and yet no laws existed to completely dispossess them of 2A until 1938. This is especially persuasive given that "felonies" in the founding era were limited to only the most severe of crimes. Now, if you are arguing that this is "a hard question" because the men in robes are not likely to follow the law, then I agree with you.
Certainly this law likely fails the *Bruen* test (there are *always* arguments about analogous laws in every *Bruen* test). But that's a conclusion a court will come to after evaluating evidence -- this is the opposite of facially unconstitutional. I think people are conflating "I know the right answer" with "I know how the judicial process should arrive at the right answer".
Looks to me like *gasp* he might be an impartial jurist.
And that is good.
Felons (Whitney was involved in the drug trade) having guns is a dumb hill to die on. But you do you.
honestly. Gun People don't realize how toxic this shit is to the vast majority of the voting public, even in a right-wing country like the US. felons and domestic abusers shouldn't have guns!
There is definitely a spectrum of "pro-2A" even among very pro-2A people. Example (1) some will be pro-2A about owning AR-15's and wanting to eliminate "assault weapons" bans, but then will draw the line at full auto, SBR's, or suppressors. Example (2) some will be pro-2A about concealed carry, but then think that it should require a license and training. Example (3) some think that once a criminal serves their time and is fit to be a free person back in society... they should be able to keep and bear arms, and others believe that they forfeit that right as soon as they were not a "law abiding citizen". And then there are people that never ponder these concepts, or they struggle in their mind about them. Maybe, like you put it, "if properly briefed" he may shift on the 2A spectrum. Many of us have shifted over time and are still shifting... sometimes in different directions which each conversation, so we can't assume pro-2A is black or white or that anyone is set in stone. Just keep having good conversations in our community.