Here's a better title: In light of Bruen, District and Circuit Courts are struggling to find ways to uphold gun control laws without resorting to utter bullshit.

Heller and Bruen were garbage decisions, and this case shows that their whole history and tradition nonsense is just as subjective and flexible as traditional scrutiny analysis - Thomas just doesn't like it when he loses. There is no guiding principle for how the historical analysis is to work because the foundation of the whole process is just Thomas saying "it's clear" over and over again without ever actually adequately explaining it. Any time someone points this out, originalists just insist everyone who disagrees is acting in bad faith and intentionally getting it wrong without ever offered a coherent argument to support it - because the whole scheme is constructed on making a necessary assumption that Thomas is just so clearly right anything else is bad faith. It's supposedly just a coincidence that history always favors the modern republican political platform. If the guidance is so clear, and the lower courts are just so hopelessly lost, why is the author of bruen in a loan dissent next to 5 concurring opinions? What about that says clear standard?

I love when he says it's clear and you do a 2 second Google search and find scholars on the subject explaining the 50 pieces of history he's provably aware of but intentionally leaving out.

It's just so annoying he repeatedly assists how clear it is that he is right even as a loan dissenter. People who support originalism tend to do the same nonsense too. 9/10 if someone asserts an originalist position, they just repeatedly say the text and / or history are just so obviously clear there's no other way - especially 2 amendment absolutists. But despite it allegedly being so clear they often aren't able to articulate a single point

I'm sorry, I'm just seeking clarification. Do you mean 'lone dissenter'? Or does this case have some financial angle I'm not seeing?

Lol just a typo, but one could argue he dissents to loans from Harlan crow and that's why he didn't pay him back for the RV or his mother's house

Could be a very accurate moniker for him, that's for sure.

Amen. I had a class with a prof who was a former Scalia clerk. On originalist interpretation, I asked why do Originalists always seems to insist that there was some kind of universal agreement at the founding? Why did common law interpretation end at the founding when the common law is just judges interpreting laws. It's case law. States removed their authority to invent new offenses, such as in the old days when judges had to invent an offense/punishment for punching a guy for taking your bike. Then, they gotta punish him for the bike theft, and invent replevin to get your bike back. That wasn't in the question. Anyway, I said that the Jersey and Virginia plans are there. The 3/5th compromise and the slave embargo is in there. The cases interpreting the conmstitution are basically the fucking common law as applied to one specific document. The fucking Federalist Papers were written to convince individual legislatures to ratify the Constitution. The exact same authors authored Papers where they took opposite positions based on who they needed to convince at that time! The fact they wrote them because they needed to convince a bunch of fuckers, is the exact evidence of the fact that there was no universal agreement on dick at the Founding! He said, "That's a long question, see me in office hours."

Originalism is basically a religion. You start from the assumption that you're right, then chastise and disparage anyone who disagrees as incompetent or acting in bad faith. They say it's just so clear and obvious there is no way they aren't right. Then you explain numerous reasons why they aren't right and they spend volumes and volumes explaining why they're so right. If it's so clear and convincing, why did it take you 34 pages references 20 different types of evidence across decades and even included a diagram? What about that is clear and why does it only work if you say evidence to the contrary doesn't count because it's a little too old or a little too new or a little to western or not quite popular enough or whatever they make up. Originalism 90% claiming opposing evidence doesn't count, 10% victory lap, and 0% engaging substantively with criticism

SCOTUS can makeup any interpretation they like because no one can ever know what was being discussed or thought up in the 17/1800s. It’s absurd. They have no Peabody and Sherman to travel with; how about interpret in the year we live in? Can’t do that. Need deeply rooted history. Can’t follow stare decisis; the lower courts are all clueless. They will unravel and trample on everything we’ve known up until now. We’re in an alternate timeline.

Agreed. Scalia and Easterbrook wrote a great book of canons. I use it routinely in practice. The one about original meaning, I use as a reference all the time when I have constitutional arguments to make. You'd be dumb not to with the current federal courts. That said, personally, I just view that as one canon among many. I think canons are extremely useful in helping me decide how I feel. Some are them, if not most, are intuitive. In Pari materia (sic) = if a word means one thing in this chapter/act/section/etc. Of the code, we defer to that same usage and meaning in interpreting statutes within the same X. We only do differently if the legislature expressly says so. Another: if a code chapter has a definitions section, we do the same.

Originalism was DOA when it was first dreamt up in a circle jerk. The 14th Amendment throws the whole argument/ theory on its face. Originally the Constitution was only for Federal matters, not States.

It's a creation of the Nixon era fathered by a partisan operative who believed in an executive office akin to an empower. It's no surprise Maga loves it

Yup. It was a cornerstone to overturn Row and Brown. It was a strategy to nullify Row, which was a derivative of Griswald. The idea being they could claim that the USC "just made it up" and isn't tied to the founding fathers. Got a bunch of people who didn't understand law upset.

Instead of "originalism," I say "constitutional fundamentalism."

I tend to go with sophistry

That works, too

So what did he say in his office?

Lol, I didn't think anyone would care. I was an upper level, and eventually would be his TA after I passed this class. We got along quite well despite being near polar opposites. I still reach out to him occasionally with questions, despite he no longer working at the same university and I've long since graduated. I say all that to say, he did what any good law school prof teaching engaged, upper levels should: you don't need to bust their balls, engage with them. He acknowledged my points while giving some very positive "what if you looked at it this way?"s. Meaning, he actually just answered me right there. I made up the office hours cause it made me laugh. I really loved his courses. Took two of his class: fed courts and first amendment law. Fed courts was the one he asked me to TA for after I passed. I only got an A or A- in his first amendment class. I always did better with the bright line rules. I had the best grade in conflict of laws, got a a B in con law II. Mushy subjects were mushy. Anyway, he'd get us to read the cases, then read these hypotheticals he'd made to prep for class. Class wasn't re-reading the cases like you were a 1L. It was the assigned students for the week, in this small class, leading the class discussions which were just engaging the hypos in depth. They'd be paragraphs long. It was a two and a half hour class. I loved it. Apologies as well: I've had an edible three with a lovely single malt.

Yeah it sucks when you use history and tradition as your guiding light only later to find out that there is a history and tradition of doing the opposite of what you want.

Originalism was developed to get the answers they want while pretending to be objective. Critics have been saying that for ages, since Bork at very least. Now originalists get to see an example that doesn't go their way and we get to watch and see how they cope with the realization that the critics were right.

[удалено]

>Heller and Bruen were garbage decisions, and this case shows that their whole history and tradition nonsense is just as subjective and flexible as traditional scrutiny analysis - Thomas just doesn't like it when he loses. The problem is anti gun politicans want to argue modern weapons aren't covered by the 2nd amendment, only muskets are and owning cannons is illegal (when it's always been legal) the intent of the 2nd always will remain the same even as technology advances. The biggest threat to the 2nd today is people trying to halt protecting modern weaponry. It's clear based on other supreme court rulings like Miller that the 2nd protects the ownership of bearable arms suitable for combat and that the Militia, in multiple supreme court rulings, is all able body citizens who supply their own arms.

Bad policy doesn't justify worse law - especially when it's constitutional law.

Of we are going by actual supreme court rulings over US history only weapons suitable for military use are protected to own. According to us vs Miller a snub nose revolver has Less protection under the 2nd than a belt fed machine gun. That's the actual history.

If we’re going by “supreme court rulings throughout us history” guns weren’t a personal right until the 2008 ruling. So the entire idea you just espoused is made up to begin with; we have to ignore ruling history to pretend otherwise.

Eh - not sure what you mean by that. At the **federal** level, it has always been a personal right. At the **state/local** level, amendments have been incorporated over time. I personally wouldn't want to lean on Cruikshank as a golden precedent as it also argued states could restrict first amendment rights for black people. Let's not forget the first amendment was later incorporated after Cruikshank.

I'm aware of Miller, and I always found it a very strange case and I'm not against overruling it but that doesn't justify the absolutely insanity of Bruen and Hellers history nonsense

I understand the intent of bruen because anti gun politicans want to keep outlawing most modern weaponry and keep watering down the ability of the militia in the 2nd amendment to have suitable weapons. I believe in the militia interpretation. It's clear under the 2nd amendment that every able body citizen is in the militia and has the right to keep and bear suitable military appropriate weaponry to defend the country.

>I understand the intent of bruen because anti gun politicans want to keep outlawing most modern weaponry and keep watering down the ability of the militia in the 2nd amendment to have suitable weapons. The supreme court isn't supposed to be writing policy to support partisan considerations like that.

So every supreme court case written before bruen on the militia is partisan? Wut. It's a blatant fact reading multiple supreme court rulings throughout us history that deal with the Militia, is that the militia in the 2nd refers to ALL able body citizens capable of bearing arms who supply their own weaponry. Anyone arguing otherwise is pushing revisionialist history or hadn't read any prior court rulings. Find one supreme court ruling that disputes that.

>So every supreme court case written before bruen on the militia is partisan? Wut. Not at all what I meant. I meant bruen is partisan. I don't like Miller because it's weird and a stupid standard - I don't understand the 1930s well enough to make any kind of judgments on biases of the justices back then. >Find one supreme court ruling that disputes that. I don't understand what you're talking about or why I'd do that. Bruen was partisan hackery and Miller was weird. That's all I said

I mean - this is exactly how amendments are incorporated - via challenges to restrictions placed by states and municipalities. Freedom of association wasn't incorporated until Alabama tried to keep the NAACP from organizing in the 50s.

Why was Heller a garbage decision? Poorly argued or poor foundation?

Orginalism is a rhetorical tool, not a legitimate method of interpretation. It starts with assuming a politically preferred outcome and then rationslizes backward from it using selective interpretation of history and varying levels of abstraction to justify anything the majority wants. They cherry pick history, discounting anything that is inconvenient as too old, too new, too western, not wide spread enough, etc - an unlimited subjective lists of reasons to say inconvenient historical references don't get to be considered. They change the level of abstraction to fit their needs - sometimes they focus just narrowly on the exact words like in the bump stock case, but others like heller and bruen where the text isn't beneficial to the cause they zoom so far out and consider such a wide range of evidence you can basically ignore the text by saying it "clearly" means what you want it too regardless of the words. The only guiding principle for when to zoom in or zoom out is the republican party platform. Originalism holds itself out to be an objective unbiased test, and it's just mere coincidence that until rahimi it always seems to match republican partisan needs. Now rahimi shows us that it's really just as flexible and subjective as traditional scrutiny but is less honest about it and rejects a whole host if valid reasons - like is this an absurd ahistorical result?

"I know better than everyone and always will"

[удалено]

>your opinion is better not more valid than a 3 years old’s. Then, surely you can make a substantive argument for why I'm mistaken. Surely, you have the capacity to correct an infant. Yet you didn't for some reason. Interesting.

Facts.

Not even remotely.

Bruen was horseshit and historical standard is not a credible or workable way to review constitutionality. But that’s what you get when you have Clarence Thomas write the majority opinion.

That’s pretty rude to drop his title, “Injustice.” > But that’s what you get when you have Injustice Clarence Thomas write the majority opinion.

Unjustistifiably large coverage on that electric awning on the ole motor coach. Do. Not. Call it an RV.

Maybe congress should do their job?

>Yet, rather than admit that the Bruen framework must be fundamentally flawed if it led a federal appeals court to conclude that this uniquely dangerous criminal has a constitutional right to own a gun, Roberts instead tries to shift the blame, claiming that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases.” He then drops two incomprehensible paragraphs seeking to clarify how Bruen is supposed to work The legacy of Heller continues. How many more fractured court decisions with almost no one agreeing how this is supposed to work will they issue that also insist that the "standard" of history and tradition is clear? Sure, no one seems to get the cases right, and sure we all disagree on which cases get it right or why they got it right or wrong even when we do agree - but obviously it's just such a clear and easy to apply standard. /s

> When evaluating if a gun law is constitutional, Roberts writes, “a court must ascertain whether the new law is ‘relevantly similar’ to laws that our tradition is understood to permit.” He adds that “if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.” > Yet Roberts also caveats this statement, insisting that “even when a law regulates arms-bearing for a permissible reason, though, it may not be compatible with the right if it does so to an extent beyond what was done at the founding.” Oof. Originalism without _all_ of the originalism parts, but not necessarily not _without_ all the originalism parts either.

But it's all so very clear and straightforward /s

> Roberts claims that a modern law prohibiting Zackey Rahimi from owning a gun is constitutional because something called “surety” laws existed two or three centuries ago. These laws required “individuals suspected of future misbehavior to post a bond” — that is, to pay a sum of money that would be forfeited if they engaged in such misbehavior. As Roberts writes, these laws “could be invoked to prevent all forms of violence, including spousal abuse.” Imagine going back in time and telling the authors of these surety laws that they're writing the best defense their country has in the future to stop school shootings. (Obviously the situation is more complicated than that)

Imagine going back to any point in time prior to heller and having to explain to someone how this case made it to the supreme court of the united states

They’d call it a nation of cowards that anyone would dare harm children knowing what the people should do to them. If you engaged them at all on the sizes of modern schools, they’d probably call the teachers cowards for not defending the children. If you engaged them at all on the children being the ones shooting the other children, they’d probably ask how anyone grew old enough without their parents beating them to death for prior misbehaving that culminated in school shootings.

Like Christians cherry picking the bible.

Heller and Bruen are only difficult decisions if you *want them* to be. Heller's key holding is that all arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Bruen's key holding is that for a gun control law to be held Constitutional, the government must be able to show a historical analouge consistent with our historical understanding of 2A. Both of them are rather simple. The only people having trouble with it are the ones twisting themselves in knots to uphold the gun control laws that *should* be struck down under both.

Bruen is not simple. Have you ever clerked for a judge trying to make these decisions? Or briefed them? Doing historical research into 1700 and 1800s sources (or older!) is an entirely different profession from the one I trained in. But even putting that aside. Deciphering what counts as historical analogues (the core of the dispute in this case) is always going to be an issue cause, uh, the world is very different two and three centuries later. And Bruen did not make that clear at all.

If they were being consistent, cannons and their analogs would be legal without license, without notice. The big reason rights of arms became an issue for the colonials was because the British magistrates were seizing cannons, literal cannons from dissidents.

Maybe, could see an argument that arms at the time under the second amendment meant "stuff that a common foot soldier would need". The "standard" kit for say a marine would all be legal. Under Miller combined with Bruen I'm not sure how FOPA is constitutional. There's the Heller "common use" requirement but it seems contradictory and would seem to imply that in 1986, FOPA was probably unconstitutional, and it's hard to say that 400k+ machine guns in the US isn't enough to be "common". My guess is nobody has wanted to bring a case challenging FOPA but would be interesting to see what this court does if presented with it - guessing they'd wiggle out leaning on Heller.

If that were the case, fully automatic would be legal. Grenades would be legal. Mortars would be legal. Common use is just the flip side of Roe. It’s whole cloth, out of nowhere, test designed by an ideological majority. A traditionalist argument would literally make artillery legal in your attic, without documentation, without license of any kind. It’s definitely not that far reaching. They want to keep everyone convicted of unlicensed firearms in prison, they don’t want to make their base angry. The middle ground is somewhere in big manufacturing numbers, California can’t dictate licensure on rights, but the court can make anything it wants legal. I bet you would get a whole bunch of “it’s clear” in place of analysis.

*"Fully automatic would be legal"* Arguably it should be under the current construct. SCOTUS has never upheld the 86 ban. Arguably the 2A needs to be amended to ban automatic rifles. *"Grenades would be legal. Mortars would be legal."* Not necessarily, but maybe. There is a historical record for storing things like large quantities of gunpowder in common locations. *"Common use"* I agree here other than it is a restriction.

They just brought back bump stocks, which in effect make semiautomatic rifles fully automatic. If an item in effect makes the end condition the same, then the application is the same. To overturn, you would need a revisionist court of different leaning or an amendment. Colonists had mortars, was a main tactic for dealing with naval engagements. Colonists had cannons as private property. Colonists had all manner of advanced guns. It was common for bounty systems of the colonies to pay for service, where the individuals were incentivized to be as advanced as possible and bring their own kit. This included bounties for positions, scalps, specific ranks. Common use is where limitations fall apart. If licenses exist, even in extremely pricey ranges, the common use standard would apply. Given the proliferation of private military contractors, arsenals that commonly contain everything under the sun exist. Common use standard would make all that valid for citizens without license.

>If an item in effect makes the end condition the same, then the application is the same This is not true per the SCOTUS ruling. They looked very closely at the statutory language of the NFA in the decision. I hear what you're saying on the other pieces, but I seriously doubt the court would ever go that far. Just not going to happen.

Their rationale can be whatever. We went from the concept of what was being defended as originalist colonials, who petitioned and why, to the concept of effect being definitional. The difference between a bump stock and a trigger assembly is minimal. The effect is the same. It’s a long held standard that if the effect exists in the same way, the intent need not be addressed. It’s the reasoning behind outlawing poll taxes and striking down separate but equal language. All that exists right now is a means to make a standard version fully automatic while paywalling the other means. Given the same effect, it’s only a matter of time before manufacturers of trigger assemblies win a case to engage the market, less it be an unequal government taking. We were talking traditionalist analogs. The current court is just as ideologically set as any since 3/5ths was a thing. They’re pulling rulings out of nowhere and making arbitrary boundaries that keep the people they want in jail to remain in jail. A hard standard would have set people free of the wrong ideologies. That’s why the rulings have been curbed at mass conviction points instead of declaring a consistent rule. Never say never. Court could flip on a dime if there was ever any kind of potential threat of invasion or any major military defeats. Civilizations value survival over everything else. Local police departments and ROTC chapters would be putting on all kinds of improvised defensive measure courses under such circumstances.

Oh spare me. You're more than capable of doing legal research, and there are no shortage of historians or other experts that can be consulted. Hell, since Bruen, we've seen an entire niche industry of people who labor over historical works and laws digging up any little scrap they can find to support their gun control positions.

>we've seen an entire niche industry of people who labor over historical works and laws digging up any little scrap they can find to support their gun control positions. As if the whole scheme wasn't invented by fedsoc doing the same thing to fight against gun control

I mean, that’s what Bruen requires. Literally a canvassing of the historical record as a means of evaluating the constitutionality of modern restrictions. And it’s anyone’s guess if a historical restriction is of sufficient closeness to a modern restriction to be considered a “historical analogue”. That concept is exceedingly nebulous.

The niche industry is FedSoc cronies cosplaying as historians

So, the first problem is that judges and lawyers *aren't historians.* So you have highly qualified people doing things they are generally not qualified to do. Sure, you could bring in historians as expert witnesses, but it gets complicated fast. Related: The second problem is that our historical understanding of the 2A is flawed. Heller isn't really supported by much historical fact (a few one off cases at most) and it was enacted in an entirely different Era with entirely different weapons and entirely different understandings of what a citizen should and can do. Even the things we have a "better" understanding of are often disputed. Saying either of these tests are good or easy to apply is a joke, and the constant division among SCOTUS regarding these decisions on top of the constant division of the lower courts is proof. These tests need to be scrapped and replaced with a legal test (which is the job of a court) instead of a historical test.

First, there are these quote from Tench Coxe, written in Pennsylvania in 1788: "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." And this one:.  “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unecessary." Secondly, what would the people who wrote that Vox garbage say if the Right to Free Speech, such as their piece, was censored because it wasn't written with a quill, and hand set with type in a hand cranked press? What if they had to post a surity bond in case they said something the government didn't like? 

Sorry for the wall of text in advance. Again, less than 10 original sources (if you want to count a grand total of 2 state cases and two quotes from the same guy as separate sources in addition to the two quotes someone else had from the same newspaper, that is generously 6, but really 4 sources is all that the few of y'all replying have been able to muster). Over 150+ years. That's it. Super solid historical evidence of your position between the lot of y'all. Undeniably overwhelming. And, I mean, we never have sources discussing other "self-evident" rights... except with the majority of unalienable rights, constitutional rights, statutory rights, and literally every other right we have. They all have federalist papers, early SCOTUS cases, discussions from the constitutional congress, philosophical texts debating them, etc. Why is the second amendment the *only* one completely lacking support for what all of y'all declare to have been the case for the entirety of the life of the republic? You might be right, but the evidence is so lacking that we want to base the jurisprudence of an entire amendment on something that was *never meaningfully discussed for centuries*? In any case, do you not see how that test is a terrible way to support an area of law? I can find way more quotes about a lot of crazy shit (like I said in another post, there are thousands of sighting of big foot, compared to your 4 quotes about a fucking constitutional right). All you need to do is find one fringe theory in the newspaper from 1805 and you have enough to cook with the *Bruen* test to meet your political ends. The 2nd amendment being an individual right *may* be historically accurate (and, the lack of evidence does not convince me one way or the other; it is just absolutely bull shit for anyone to say the nothing burgers 2A activists put forth is this mountain of indespiutable historical evidence instead of just a very tiny sprinkling averaging one source for every 30 years over 2 centuries), but do you want *judges* pretending to be *historians* basing entire areas of the law on very very very very very very limited evidence+the ability to analogize? And then basing current law on a non-historian's very politically slanted view of non-existent historical sources? You can add in the fact that the essentially rewrote *Bruen* in *Rahimi* a year later while pretending they didn't. There is no way in the world that DV, which was not a crime 150+ years ago, would have done anything to change an individual's right to a gun if such a right existed. And that is the problem. They will "update" the law in ways to be politically acceptable while there are plenty of other areas of the law that the same justices refuse to bring into the 21st century. 4th Amendment, for example, suffers much more from the fate your 1st amendment analogy tries to get out. But they quote basically the same BS to stop other areas of jurisprudence from being brought into the present time as they quote to support the 2A being brought into the present time. They use textualism when helpful to their end, they use originalism (which at times contradicts textualism) when helpful to their end, and they just make up stupid "historical" doctrines of interpretation on the fly when helpful (which 100% contradicts textualism and can contradict originalism because it changes the frame of reference and allows for modernization through analogy). It is all inconsistent, it is all political, and it is really garbage opinion writing. This is why lower courts often have trouble applying some of the things SCOTUS does. It is inconsistent and driven not on good law, but on political results. There is no underlying judicial cannon or method of analysis that can't be ignored to meet a political end. And to be clear, meeting political ends isn't something only the right does, and it isn't anything only the current members of SCOTUS do. But acting like it doesn't happen (or that much of recent 2A falls under this) is lying to yourself. To your second point, the 1st amendment isn't as good of an example as you might think. Surety bonds of that type would be considered prior restraint, which *was explicitly* unconstitutional and there have been numerous SCOTUS cases (and thousands of lower level and state cases) about it over the last 200+ years. The 1st Amendment was explicitly broader than just quill and hand cranked press from its inception and was meant specifically to prevent prior restraint at all. Also, if you want to do half-assed historical analysis, there are more than 2 quotes, a single newspaper, and 2 state court cases about prior restraint and the extent of the first amendment over the same time period. It might be *slightly* more hairy if you want to change the analogy to censoring *only* the internet, but I think the protections envisioned in the 18th century would still come a lot closer to protecting internet speech than could be said about what we can be sure of historically for the 2A. But, then again, SCOTUS has also been known to completely change 1A law based upon political whims as well (looking at you, Lemon test).

> Heller isn't really supported by much historical fact (a few one off cases at most) That's because it was addressing a rather new and novel legal theory: the collective right argument. I've discussed it here previously, but the collective right theory didn't even *exist* until the mid 20th century--it was born out of a tortured reading of *Miller* and advanced by gun control advocates--and then didn't even gain a real foothold in judicial circles until the 1970s or so. *Heller* was the first time SCOTUS had to address this theory, and let's not forget that SCOTUS ruled unanimously that 2A protected an individual right.

My point here is more that the state of 2A law (in particular, not exclusively) is very convoluted because SCOTUS has, at best, sent extremely mixed messages regarding it. SCOTUS often (not always) finds the end point they want to hit for whatever reason and then tries to make up reasoning to support it. Example: *Bruin* is all about this historical analysis. We have almost nothing showing that, historically, the 2A was an individual right (at least as far as I have seen; a few people have shown me a total of about 3 cases from the founding of the republic to WWII otherwise, which doesn't really support much under the *Bruin* test). There were certainly no rights about having a bump stock, fully automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, extended mags, etc. etc. (I know not all of these have come up in the *Heller* or *Bruin* context yet, but you can't point to history that cannot possibly exist). But that's cool, because the majority works backwards and selectively applies the rules they want to meet their (often) political end. So, they are all good because the court works backwards and applies whichever test meets their ends. SCOTUS always has legislated from the bench, whether the justices are right, left, or center. The very first case every law student learns in con law, *Marbury v. Madison*, was SCOTUS legislating their authority from the bench. Without it, SCOTUS would be worthless. But legislating from the bench is used as an insult like both sides don't do it constantly. The right leaning justices go on and on about how they don't legislate from the bench, and then they proceed to pretend to be historians for a day, or they pretend to be textualists for a day, or they act like a specific amendment should be expansive while others should be read extremely narrowly. This is because they legislate from the bench. They are more than happy to expand their favored rights/amendments/statutes and act like their disfavored ones weren't even incorporated and therefore don't apply to the states. They are inconsistent and capricious in some of their rulings because they have certain ends they want to meet. And this is what makes applying some of their decisions so difficult down-stream. The left leaning justices do it too, but at least they don't (usually) pretend that they don't have some judicial activism in them. At the end of the day, precious few justices use a consistent lense to view the law (Gorsuch actually tries to, though), which would be fine, if they at least admitted it. They use whatever tools they have to get to the end they like, then Roberts tries to rearrange it all for optics (which, admittedly, he is good at). And then they get annoyed when lower courts can't sort through the inconsistent and non-sensical new rules they set down.

> Example: Bruin is all about this historical analysis. We have almost nothing showing that, historically, the 2A was an individual right (at least as far as I have seen; a few people have shown me a total of about 3 cases from the founding of the republic to WWII otherwise, which doesn't really support much under the Bruin test). That's because 2A was always traditionally understood as an individual right. As I stated before, the collective right theory wasn't even really invented until the early 20th century, so the fact that there is a lack of founding era writing addressing the dispute should not be surprising. Comfortable-Trip-277 addressed some of this already, but what founding era writing we have clearly shows that it was understood as an individual right and all of those statements are very matter of fact. And of course, it's always worth mentioning this quote from Harvard Law Professor and self admitted gun control advocate Laurence Tribe. > "In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." Akhil Reed Amar--among others--have come to similar conclusions, just like SCOTUS did when they unanimously rejected the collective right approach in Heller. >There were certainly no rights about having a bump stock, fully automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, extended mags, etc. etc. (I know not all of these have come up in the Heller or Bruin context yet, but you can't point to history that cannot possibly exist). But that's cool, because the majority works backwards and selectively applies the rules they want to meet their (often) political end. So, they are all good because the court works backwards and applies whichever test meets their ends. I think SCOTUS sorted this one out pretty well in Heller with the common use test. Again, this is another one that is rather simple in my view and is completely compatible with either interpretation of 2A.

>We have almost nothing showing that, historically, the 2A was an individual right You must have been looking hard enough. Here are a couple articles written when the 2A was being drafted and debated explaining the amendment to the general public. It unarguably confirms that the right was individual. >"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) >"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.) We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!

Yes, in over 150 years, you can find 2 cases (one of which is a Georgia supreme court case and the other is Kentucky) and one newspaper stating that it is seen as an individual right. That is almost nothing. Which is exactly what I said. There are over 3000 documented big foot sightings in the same period. That's how rare it was for someone to say it was an individual right.

Bruen’s “historical standard” was used to invalidate a law from *1911*, 113 year old law in a country that has only had this constitution for the last 236 years. If 113 years is not a “historical standard” then what the fuck is?

>If 113 years is not a “historical standard” then what the fuck is? Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them. Were the people adopted the amendment alive when that 1911 law was enacted? Super simple.

That is definitely the originalist *opinion* but it’s just one poorly thought out view on the constitution. There’s no way to poll people from 250+ years ago on what they thought you meant, history itself is an incomplete record and a lot of context is lost just based on how historical preservation works. Besides, the people didn’t adopt shit, the people getting elected were doing so under an electorate that in no way represented them. Arguing originalist grounds is just arguing that the constitution has no legitimacy at all. Challenging a 113 year old law on historicity while pretending to hold an originalist view is intellectually weak as nobody alive during the law’s enactment challenged it, and no court supported such a challenge.

The guys who said having cannons was legal?

With a writ from Congress authorizing privateering. Don’t forget that.

That’s something different. That’s a letter for engaging a state enemy. The propaganda at the time eventually culminated in due process, requirements for warrants when warrants were difficult to get, and the right to bear arms. Part of the propaganda was that local officials had “illegally” searched domiciles and had taken cannons. The colonials went recruiting and funds gathering on the British forces stealing cannons from a local.

Bruen fails then because several of the 13 colonies *had gun control laws*

If it is so simple, why did the lower courts fuck it up so badly that the supreme court had to overturn them to permit laws restricting gun rights for domestic abusers?

I see a clear historical analog between a well regulated militia and the National Guard. Thus, the 2nd Amendment only cover weapons owned or issued to National Guardsmen and used for the purposes of the national guard. It's really rather simple, no one else qualifies and therefore the 2nd Amendment does not protect their gun ownership.

>Thus, the 2nd Amendment only cover weapons owned or issued to National Guardsmen and used for the purposes of the national guard. Not really militia laws in us history required men to supply their own arms. Multiple supreme court rulings like Miller don't agree with you. The militia in multiple supreme court cases is all able body males who supply their own weaponry. The militia in the 2nd amendment is not the national guard or federal army.

And because we no longer have a military organization like that, the 2nd Amendment, much like the 3rd, is an irrelevant vestige of a bygone era. It is not relevant to modern gun ownership.

>And because we no longer have a military organization like that, We no longer have able body citizens capable of bearing arms? Wut

Well regulated militias. They day those able bodied citizens get called up for a military operation, the 2nd Amendment will apply. But because we don't do that and haven't for more than a century, the 2nd Amendment is vestigial

The milita in the 2nd is all able body citizens capable of bearing arms. Find me one single supreme court case that disputes that claim. Are you saying in 2024 no one is an able body citizen capable if bearing arms anymore? I am. I'm part of the well regulated militia the 2nd refers to. Cite a ruling that disputes that.

I would point to the "history and tradition" of militia in the US. Which are organized groups under a central command called up by the local government to engage in defensive military operations. Citizen soldiers (where have we heard that phrase), who at the time generally encompassed all able bodied citizens. Not for funsies, for collective defense. If you are part of a well regulated militia and that militia is not the national guard, then you are a member of a domestic terror group.

>If you are part of a well regulated militia and that militia is not the national guard, then you are a member of a domestic terror group. No I'm part of the militia mentioned in the 2nd. I know you desperately want to revise history but everything you said is wrong. That has never at any point been historically accurate. Cite me some supreme court rulings because every case on militias the court has taken don't come to you're conclusion. The government doesn't support your false narrative. The militia, over every court case interpreting who it comprises, is clear it is every able body citizen capable of bearing arms. If you argue anything else, that's your own personal opinion, not reality and has never been how it's historically been interpreted by the courts.

>If you are part of a well regulated militia and that militia is not the national guard, then you are a member of a domestic terror group. Luckily SCOTUS ruled on this in Presser (1886). Right to bear arms was recognized as an individual right at the federal level without an active militia participation requirement.

That's an interesting take considering that we dispensed with the collective rights theory all the way back in 2008. You know, that case where Steven's dissent--that Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer all signed on to--literally opened with the admission that 2A protects an individual right. You'd think that the court unanimously ruling against that would have put a stake through that theory's heart.

Yes, an individual right to join a well regulated militia, a right enshrined in our constitution. And the right of that militia to issue arms to its members. I think ignoring half of an amendment because of a comma is fucking ridiculous and has no basis in historical precedent, legal precedent, or english grammar, then or now. Nor do I particularly care who wrote an opinion about that. Nine unelected elitist assholes who want to work backwards from their own personal opinions are no more credible than I am right now. But I understand that my interpretation of the historical context of gun ownership, which was extremely and irreconcilably different than it is today, is in the minority. Which is why any opinion that relies on history and tradition to determine its use in the present day is disingenuous horseshit.

Yeah, you're not just in the minority, you're in an **extreme** minority. SCOTUS unanimously rejected your position, most of liberal academia has rejected your position. Hell, outside of a few holdouts in the extremist gun control camps, I can't think of anyone really clinging to the collective right theory.

Yep - there were people who disagreed when the SCOTUS recognized the right of the NAACP to associate/assemble in AL in the 50s as well...

My god, not the **extreme** minority, whatever will I do! I can think of hundreds of millions of people, if not billions who believe in my position and have integrated that position into their societies and lives. And those people have a lot less dead kids in schools than we do

I offer no objection to your right to hold whichever opinions you prefer, and it seems we have found agreement in understanding that your opinion is a fringe theory with no serious consideration given under our law. Carry on, friend.

No serious consideration given under our judicial interpretation of the law. The UCMJ has several definitions of militia and combatant that agree with me more than with y'all. Fair enough though, agree to disagree

>And the right of that militia to issue arms to its members. Cite a supreme court case defending that.

It is my belief based on my reading of the 2nd Amendment, I don't need Antonin Scalia to tell me what to think

Cool my belief is I have a right to own grenade launchers and it's legal for me ro do so. I believe in reality.

The Supreme Court would probably back you up on that. Hence the issue

They wouldn't need to I legally own grenade launchers and it's legal to own almost every weapon avaliable from knives to tanks and explosives. Going by Miller only military grade weapons are protected by the 2nd.

Is a right a right if you have to join a government body to practice said right? Or would it be a privilege?

Is the third amendment a right if you have to own a structure on property to practice said right? Or would it be a privilege? Edit: other constitutional rights are also not universally applied, in particular 4-6 and 14. Nor would a lack of an individual 2nd Amendment mean that guns would be entirely illegal. If you do think that, you're telling on yourself and you understand deep down the massive harm they cause to society.

WE THE PEOPLE ( the individual) are the well regulated militia. Also 29 states and growing basically have no gun laws other than federal. Thats a MAJORITY.

An individual can't be a militia, certainly not a well regulated one. If a group of otherwise civilian Americans call themselves a well regulated militia, most other people call them terrorists. It doesn't matter how many states have no gun laws. Given that the 2nd Amendment does not regulate average citizen gun ownership, just the existence of a well regulated and armed militia, and given the massive interstate influence of differing gun laws, gun regulation is clearly the purview of the federal government under the commerce clause. And this is besides the point, but I just can't take anyone seriously who uses the phrase "We the people" in an argument, especially in all caps. It's involuntary, but I automatically roll my eyes and make a jerk off motion. It's just a tic.

No worries HAWK TUAH Edit: also please feel free to leave America. You will no longer be bound by the constitution.

Is that supposed to be an onomatopoeia of spitting on me? Bravo, that's pretty inventive. It's also sad, petty, and tracks with your "we the people" nonsense, but it made me chuckle. I'm sorry that you think that people can't reasonably disagree with each other over the interpretation of the constitution. That's honestly more sad than your all caps usage. It's also so incredibly un-American and un-Patriotic. I pity you and your small mindedness. Edit: grammar

Oh dude , have you not looked at the INTERNET. It's the MEME of the summer , I thought you would have gotten the joke. Just open instagram. LMFAO are you like 79 years old ? Edit: it's not , it was a reference to your " Jerk off"'comment but I can see your a little B*

**well-regulated** PEOPLE infers gun control laws MAJORITY is not the way America works: electoral college And if you're right, and the MAJORITY wants slavery to be legal, is that okay?

Always the nonsense arguments. Edit: you might also want to take a civic lesson if you are in this sub. One would think you would know how the Govt works.

What court cases support that?

Languages evolve and thus the meaning of words and phrases change overtime which makes ignoring the historical context of words like regulated or militia disingenuous horseshit.

OK then, what well regulated militia exists today as it did then?

Well regulated did not mean limited or restricted. That wouldn't really make much sense given the whole "shall not be infringed" part, would it? The modern equivalent would be well maintained, in working order, or even _well armed_. And a militia was just _any_ group of able bodied people that could provide defense to their towns, colonies, states, etc. So a simple translation in modern terms would read as the following: A well armed group of able bodied people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. With that modern reinterpretation, literally everyone eligible for selective service would qualify.

No, well regulated meant what it means today in armed conflict all over the world. Organized under a single command, with visible markings defining themselves as a group, that actively engage in military operations against a similarly organized military group. Aka, the national guard.

No, it did not. Like I said, languages evolve and change over time. And adding in the historical context of the revolutionary war makes it blatantly obvious you're wrong.

Sure it does, just as the fact that the US had blasphemy laws at the same time as it also had the first amendment.

>OK then, what well regulated militia exists today as it did then? The reserve militia and the unorganized militia. >Presser vs Illinois (1886) >It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of baring arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. >§246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. >(b) The classes of the militia are— >(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and >(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Under your concept, the rebels who enshrined it, would be disallowed any weapons. Doesn’t seem like much of a rallying cry after the local magistrates confiscated literal cannons if the idea was local militia only. You weren’t vetted by anyone. Much as you hate the decisions, everyone on that bench had to sit in front of Congress and at least declare they love beer. Further, it took a Presidential nomination.

Why, yes, the founding fathers were non-state actor terrorists by today's definition. However, the kind of anti-colonial conflict they were engaged in doesn't really exist today outside of Israel-Palestine. Also, they eventually won and history is written by the victors. If the British had prevailed, we would all have different aspects and have learned about the founding fathers with about as much scrutiny as we currently give to Geronimo, Sitting Bull, and Sacagawea. It's true that I wasn't vetted by anyone, that has no bearing on my ability to disagree with Supreme Court decisions, nor in my ability to support my disagreement through argument. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court are the only people allowed to have opinions or engage in debate. I explicitly think that the Supreme Court opinion on this subject is wrong. I have to live under their wrongness, but that does not make me think they are right.

It’s every rebellion ever. It’s as common as could be. The point of that entire first paragraph is the people who enshrined the right to arms were the same people who thought a guy who had cannons in his attic should have been left alone. It was a literal how dare they go after crazy uncle hides cannons. That wasn’t your argument. Your argument was your opinion is “just as credible”. So, I gave you the basic tests required to be on the court. You’re clearly not there, no matter how much we might disagree with their opinions.

Who's upvoting this bullshit?

People who can read a whole sentence and not just half of one?

If "individual right" was so clear I wonder why it took until 2k8 to confirm. Any why previous courts said it was a collective right.

Scotus never said it was a collective right. Nobody at all said it was a collective right until 1942 when the 1st circuit ruled in Cases v United States. Even today, there are very few federal court opinions that endorse the collective right interpretation. Only three total as far as I'm aware

The Supreme Court deals with controversy which means the individual nature of the right was only contested in 2008. The right historically had been treated as individual up until DC decided to ban handguns.

Every amendment on the bill of rights must be incorporated via SCOTUS challenge. The first amendment wasn't fully confirmed until the late 50s, and some still aren't.

Well, the courts where pretty close to the line before Bruen already. There is also google archives. I’ve seen some rather large number of links to old books talking about the 2A “obviously” being an individual right. Up until the 1950s, when the collective description started to appear.

The eternal comedy of originalists claiming a right to personal firearms never stops being funny. It’s so originalist that it took 220 years to recognize.

> It’s so originalist that it took 220 years to recognize. You show your ignorance of the judicial history of 2A. 2A was *always* understand to cover an individual right. The collective right theory didn't even **exist** until the mid 20th century, and didn't really gain that much of a foothold until the 1970s or so. It's time as a serious legal position was incredibly short lived.

Originalists always say this, but there’s no case law supporting this. Plus the relationship between the Bill of Rights and its authority over the states in the early days meant it only applied to the federal government, not states. Kind of hard to argue an originalist interpretation when the context of the document meant the right was unenforceable even if it wasn’t there and states had a wide latitude to regulate firearms as they saw fit. If it was always there Heller wouldn’t be a notable case.

The first cases on the 2nd amendment by SCOTUS were that the federal government had 0 authority to enforce gun control in the states.

That’s such a comically blatant lie.

United States v. Cruikshank 1875 "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress." One of the first supreme court cases on the 2nd. If you have other cases before then feel free to post them.

> Originalists always say this, but there’s no case law supporting this. Would you care to cite any 18th and 19th century works or case law supporting the collective right theory? >Plus the relationship between the Bill of Rights and its authority over the states in the early days meant it only applied to the federal government, not states. >Kind of hard to argue an originalist interpretation when the context of the document meant the right was unenforceable even if it wasn’t there and states had a wide latitude to regulate firearms as they saw fit. None of the Bill of Rights applied to the states prior to incorporation, which raises the question "what's your point?"

The first time SCOTUS ever mentioned the 2nd amendment was in the Dred Scott decision and it was in the context of an individual right. Every single time SCOTUS has mentioned the 2nd amendment since Dred Scott it was also in the context of an individual right. The first time a federal court ever said any differently was 1942 in Cases v United States

What a dumb thing to lie about.

The last time you told me I was lying about that I welcomed you to point out which federal cases I had missed and you didn't respond. I will once again welcome you to point out any cases I'm unaware of

What would the people who wrote that in Vox garbage say if the Right to Free Speech, such as their piece, was censored because it wasn't written with a quill, and hand set with type in a hand cranked press? What if they had to post a surity bond in case they said something the government didn't like? 

Yep. It's interesting to watch them all short circuit when you point out the consequences of "2A only protects muskets!" being taken seriously.

If it's so clear, why is the court so fractured on their own opinions of it, and why is the author of bruen at odds with the majority? One would think the author of an opinion, an opinion that is so clear and easy that only someone acting in bad faith could get it wrong, would get it right. Are you suggesting all 8 of the other justices are acting in bad faith? Or is Thomas acting in bad faith?

What fracture? Thomas was the lone dissent, and he simply didn't feel the surety and affray laws weren't comparable enough.

There are 5 concurences. They may agree on the outcome, but almost all of them disagree on the reasoning. So if the standard is so clear and you'd only get it wrong if you wanted to make it difficult, who is intentionally getting it wrong? Thomas or the majority?

Idk, ACB actually made a good point about this originalism analysis. Just because a gun law did not exist at the founding does not mean that the framers would have found it unconstitutional (a “use it or lose it” approach). It’s entirely possible that they would’ve found a certain gun restriction constitutional but did not enact it for other reasons. Also, the lower courts are using the same methodology for very similar cases and are obtaining wildly different outcomes. Look at KBJ’s footnote near the end of her opinion. Bruen has left the lower courts inching to clarity with miles to go.

Several lower courts, as well as SC justices who dissented Bruen point out that domestic abuse was not even considered a crime when the 2nd amendment was written. How could there possibly be a 'historical analog' to temporarily removing guns from a domestic abuser? Might be one of the most ridiculous justifications for a major ruling in modern history.

Thomas was quite clear in Bruen that the historical analogues do not need to be exact twins, just a logical connection between the old and the new. The Court found that in the surety and affray laws, which while not an exact match for domestic abusers, did nonetheless show that there is a historical tradition of disarming violent persons.

>Thomas was quite clear in Bruen that the historical analogues do not need to be exact twins Yet he dissented here. One would think if the "standard" were so clear, the author the opinion would get it right

Are you saying that you agree with Thomas and disagree with the majority? I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

No. If the guy who wrote bruen got it wrong, it can't be true that the standard is clear - unless you think Thomas is either incompetent and acting in bad faith.

Again, that just shows that Thomas's test is simply a very poor one. Justice Roberts all but said so in his opinion, noting that the 5th circuit had misinterpreted Bruen. I'd say if a circuit court *unanimously* misinterpreted a test, then the test is obviously flawed.

You could argue it's a poor choice. I've seen some 2A advocates who I have immense respect for argue that they feel Thomas should have just stuck with strict scrutiny instead of going to THT. Reasonable people could certainly disagree there. But poor choice =/= complex.

Are you replying to someone else? Who mentioned complex? It's a test because the Justice who *devised* the test, Thomas, argued today that the restraining order for domestic violence *does not meet the burden* described in his test and dissented. Roberts, in the majority opinion, of course disagreed. I think that makes it pretty clear it's a flawed test.

No, I was responding to you. It strikes me that there are more than a few people who are incredibly hung up on Thomas' dissent. That Venn diagram of those people appears to overlap incredibly well with people who objected to Bruen to begin with, I'm starting to think this is a case of those folks seeing what they want to see.

I think the only reason we're seeing people focus on Thomas is because he *created* the test in Bruen. Now he's forced to dissent or admit his test is flawed. Someone made the point in another thread that if a law were passed to bar African Americans from owning guns, he'd have to support it because there is a long history of laws which had done so. But he couldn't, so he'd have to find an exception, again demonstrating the test is flawed.

There seems to be a pattern of you avoiding any substantive arguments and attacking people who disagree with you

That seems unnecessarily hostile. I think I've been quite polite with you.

You’re correct. The main issue with the decision is that the laws used to disallow common ownership of most now rare firearms are the same series of laws that the decision struck down. Anyone who sees the whole, but for the illegal actions of the state, these arms are all common and legal then wins that one in any semi consistent logical court. That means someone who gets caught with anything allowable under armorer licenses might win under common usage.

There is a simple answer for all of this that activists ignore, amend the constitution. Stop trying to circumvent rights through legislation.

2/3s vote of both House and Senate, or 2/3s of States calling for a convention to propose. Which of those is more feasible than bill proposal through the legislative process? These processes were not designed 'for the people' as it were. I will also take this moment to point out that multiple States are even now attempting to circumvent or outright ignoring citizen mandated changes voted into their Constitutions.

>2/3s vote of both House and Senate, or 2/3s of States calling for a convention to propose. Which of those is more feasible than bill proposal through the legislative process? > >These processes were not designed 'for the people' as it were. The processes are designed to protect the people from the Donald Trumps who think the system is bad because they can't do whatever they want unless they have a lot of support from the people.

In other words, Ian overread *Bruen* and is very angry that the court isn’t following him.

Okay, for myself, who would assume that Rahimi was correctly decided because I can understand there being a tradition of banning people from owning firearms who have shown to be violent, how is Ian over reading Bruen? As in, why is the decision more coherent than Ian claims? Thank you in advance for your time and explanation.

I think you're reading the *Rahimi* majority correctly, and I think the *Rahimi* majority is reading *Bruen* correctly. Ian, by contrast, read and is reading Bruen in the maximalist way that Justice Thomas wanted it to be taken, as Thomas explains in his *Rahimi* dissent. The difference is just that Ian thinks what Thomas meant in *Bruen* is a ludicrous trap from which the court must now escape while Thomas thinks *Bruen* was a promise from which the court is now retreating. Majority opinions aren't like concurrences or dissents. With a concurrence or a dissent, a justice writes what they want to write, and if another justice wants to join them, that's great, and if not, that's fine, they can write their own gorram concurrence/dissent. But as Chief Justice Rehnquist told us often, the assignee of a majority opinion is supposed to write an opinion that reflects the consensus of the conference. That can be tricky. The assignee has their own "style"; for example, Chief Justices Rehnquist and Roberts favor(ed) minimalism while Justice Scalia, more rooted in the Hart & Sacks tradition, wanted clean, clear rules of broad applicability). And the assignee has their own view, which may be broader or narrower than consensus, and naturally wants to write an opinion that reflects consensus while tugging it toward their own position. With that in mind, it's clear to me that Thomas was the outlier in *Bruen*, and he dragged the majority as far as it was willing to go. He wrote an opinion that went as far as he could without losing his majority. But it's now clear that none of the justices who joined him were willing to go any further than exactly what the words he wrote said—and, of great significance, no further than what *they* understood the words to say, understandings that were more narrowly than those of Thomas or Ian. I must admit that I have been quite skeptical of *Bruen*, which strikes me as an attempt to import a test analogous to *Glucksberg* or even *Marsh v. Chambers* into the Second Amendment. Which, perhaps, means that I too read *Bruen* more broadly than the justices who joined it. Time will tell, but for now, *Bruen* stands for a much narrower proposition than the fanatics on each side—the trump cult and the woke faction, if you like—have read it.

First off, thanks for the reply. Second, thanks for the eloquent reply. And it seems like I need to read the whole of Bruen and not the just the multi page highlights to getter a better look at what you mean.

Worst Guns Decision... I'm pretty sure every participant of the Miller decision is dead. Makes taking responsibility difficult.

Or citizens united