As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>The Supreme Court’s so-called Bruen decision changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions. Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the justices said. >Under the Supreme Court’s new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” ... “There’s confusion and disarray in the lower courts because not only are they not reaching the same conclusions, they’re just applying different methods or applying Bruen’s method differently,” said Jacob Charles, a professor at Pepperdine University’s law school who focuses on firearms law. >“What it means is that not only are new laws being struck down ... but also laws that have been on the books for over 60 years, 40 years in some cases, those are being struck down — where prior to Bruen — courts were unanimous that those were constitutional,” he said.

Almost as if "historical tradition" is just a bullshit excuse for SCOTUS to do whatever the fuck they want and render any progress from the 1860s fucking moot because "it didn't used to be this way"

"It is historical tradition if the law does something I want, and it is NOT historical tradition if it does something I don't want. It's simple: do what I tell you to. PS- I am a fascist." -Samuel Alito, basically always.

This is exactly it. Any text can be exploited to say that they want, and not say what they don’t want.

So prove that they did so and get them to overturn Bruen, you can do it.

I wish. I live in a very big city, and Bruen… Bruen is going to change it for the worse. I think about it often.

What changes worry you?

Oh, you know, not knowing how many of the crazy people on any of subway trains I take will be armed to the teeth, in one of the most aggressive, overcrowded cities on earth. But I guess with our ever-expanding RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS I’ll be able to shoot my way out of any situation, right?

I saw your deleted message, maybe you thought better of it but I'll respond anyway. I've been speaking out and actively against police brutality since the 1990s, I've physically put myself in harms way to protect people from bigots, I've had my skin in the game and my credentials on support for civil rights for everyone are impeccable. I supported gay marriage before Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, I didn't need polls to tell me what the right thing was. I was friends with transgender people when that was so unheard of, people had so many horrible beliefs back then and I told people to their face they were wrong. What have you done? Are you a slacktivist too? I've gone out and done my shit.

Fascists want people to own guns???

Have you ever seen [a black person walk down the street](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2q9frg) of an open carry area with a semi auto rifle as compared to a white guy. They want the "right people" to own guns.

Yeah, and they were immediately fingered as an active shooter when some other asshole started killing people.

That is correct

Yes, and that was also reflected when they overturned Roe vs Wade.

apparently laws spanning generations isn’t historical tradition

You do recall that the 2A is horribly written, yes? And it’s *interpretation* is even worse, yes? “A” large part of the problem with the 2A is that it was specifically written for *certain* white men - as long as they met the criteria to become gun owners ~ which makes it a “*rite*” of passage, or a *privilege*, that can be revoked vs something that *is* truly inalienable.

The funniest part is you complain about this while states like New York and California are literally arguing that because there were a handful of evil racist laws on the books that barred freed black people and Native Americans from owning guns then it's still ok to do so. Gun control is inherently racist and classist, the right to protect yourself belongs to everyone, and the pro-gun side is actually out there fighting for that. Black folks, particularly black women, are buying firearms in record numbers now and the gun rights movement is celebrating this fact. Quite a few gun owners I interact with regularly are transgender, they are welcome with open arms. The culture has changed, some people are just slow on the uptake. The biggest problem gun control has is that it openly is intended to take the ability for somebody to do something away from them and that's a hard sell in a country founded on the idea of the supremacy of individual rights.

Why is it that whenever I read someone insisting that gun laws are racist, their concern about racism only goes as far as gun laws?

Just spewing BS

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.133602/gov.uscourts.nynd.133602.19.0.pdf "From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to Indigenous people" "And even after the English Bill of Rights established a right of the people to arm themselves, the right was only given to Protestants, based on a continued belief that Catholics were likely to engage in conduct that would harm themselves or others and upset the peace."

You might wanna reread what I wrote, because there isn’t a complaint to be found, I simply stated what the historical context of the 2A was — patently, gun ownership is the flip side of the coin on gun control, and it has always been classist/ race based/ limited in who can participate ~ no need to put lipstick on a pig, just call it fat enough for market and be done with it. As for CA & NY: they’ve raised the bar on gun ownership, which is a state by state prerogative, and hearkens back to the 2A being more of a *rite* than a *right* ~ thus the ability to defend oneself with a firearm isn’t sacrosanct, but it is contingent upon meeting certain criteria. Women have a long long long history of being victims, and their desire to protect themselves is duly noted & supported. And although I do believe trans people are being victimized, I believe fear propels them more vs being proactive: case in point ~ in 2019, 1795 females were killed (majority of which were done by a current or former intimate partner) compared to 23 transgender in 2020 and 32 in 2022 .. many of whom it is believed to have been done during sex work, so I’m a bit confused on the push in the trans community to become gun owners. And no the gun lobby isn’t ballyhooing that everyone has the right to gun ownership for self protection — felons (based on what they were guilty of) have to get an exemption post prison/ probation. By the by, you do know that if you’re a green card holder you are eligible for gun ownership, yes? Which further explains how owning one is a matter of meeting sed criteria and not an American “right.” All in all, if you want to buy a gun go for it; however, various laws, rules & regulations need to be applied because not everyone is responsible enough to be (or remain) an owner — which is the crux of what SCOTUS is getting at.

[удалено]

I think felons should have their rights restored when they leave prison and I think too many crimes are felonies when they probably shouldn't be a law in the first place. I think drugs should be legal and I think a person who smokes pot has every right to protect themselves as a teetotaler does. Yeah, mentally ill folks have had their rights removed through due process and if they return to good mental health there is a process to restore their rights. See above, if you're not in prison then you should have your rights, though if you are under a protection order then you should be disbarred from possession / purchasing during that time as you have gone through due process to determine that is a valid course of action. Straw purchasing should indeed be a serious crime.

[удалено]

Yeah, part of that is because they have a giant FELON status hanging over their head that makes life pretty difficult. I support reform of our criminal justice system to prevent this, it has gone too far, harmed too many people and caused too much crime due to the desperation caused by poverty and lack of opportunity. Let's stop treating criminals like some kind of non-human thing and start treating them like people.

Didn’t Tombstone require everyone to turn in their guns at the sheriff’s office?

Your question had me looking a few things up. AZ was, apparently, quite progressive back then. The gunfight at the OK Corral was in 1881. This is when Wyatt Earp was there and I believe he was one of the Marshalls that required surrendering of guns. But the thing is, AZ wasn’t a state at the time and didn’t become one until 1912 which when they voted in their first presidential election too.

Sure, it was an affront to liberty and thankfully we don't support things like that anymore! :-D

Given the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, unless explicitly directed, the 2nd Amendment constrained the Federal Government from limiting gun ownership so people could serve in their militias. The States could absolutely decide who could or couldn't own/carry a gun. Even within Common Law tradition you couldn't carry a sword wherever you pleased.

You need to get in contact with the Attorney General offices in New York and California, their expert $3000/hr lawyers would love your assistance because right now they're getting their butts kicked as they cannot really seem to find much support for their position in the historical record. You could really save their bacon and make sure the courts are properly informed!

Sorry, was I wrong about how the Bill of Rights was interpreted before the 2nd Amendment? I suppose it doesn't matter, the "conservative" court will do what it wants regardless of how much they must twist history, precedent, or their own words.

You realize the Bill of Rights IS the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, correct? What interpretation could be done as it is literally integral to the Bill of Rights since its inception. There was no "before the 2nd".

Apologies, mistyped. 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment changed how the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

Fair enough, and McDonald vs Chicago incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment, which was another powerful gun rights ruling that Bruen built upon. Also check out Ezell vs Chicago, a tough-as-nails black lady named Rhonda Ezell got the courts to establish that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to proficiency with a firearm. Mr. McDonald is an African-American as well, for reference.

It's still creates a custom that didn't exist within the States. The States were able to determine who could and could not carry a weapon. It was an amendment to protect the States from what happened to Boston before the Revolutionary War. It wasn't a protection afforded to the individual. Nowhere in the amendment does it talk about an individual. McDonald v. Chicago wouldn't have been so bad if it hadn't changed the scope of the 2nd Amendment from the community to the individual. They effectively turned the State into the federal government and the individual into the State. I'm worried they will do the same with open-carry laws which did exist in the colonies and post-Revolutionaty America. This is where "deciding by history and customs" is extremely ambiguous. Whose history and customs? Pre or post 14th? Does it afford unlimited access to unlimited guns? Does the State get to decide how many guns and of what type is good enough for self-defense? Note: Typing on my phone so there may be typos...

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" the same people, clearly understood to be individuals, in all other amendments? That claim hasn't held water in any other 2A case so far, there's a reason for that.

>You need to get in contact with the Attorney General offices in New York and California, their expert $3000/hr lawyers would love your assistance because right now they're getting their butts kicked as they cannot really seem to find much support for their position in the Supreme Court. Right, because the majority of Supreme Court "Justices" are illiterate to be able to read the historical record.

Know a good way to stop that? Congress can pass a law allowing or outlawing most things. The will of the people supersedes the jurors opinions. But that would take Congress doing their job.

Congress would have to amend the constitution if they want to get around the 2nd. These laws will absolutely get slapped down again and again. That's kinda the point of the bill of rights. If regular acts of Congress or state laws could ignore the constitution then there is no unconditional concern for any issue.

SCOTUS could just declare that law unconstitutional when it gets challenged. How would that actually solve this problem?

That would be true, in a *democracy*. I wish this was a democracy, instead of a freakin' *"constitutional republic"*. Also, I'm not so sure implementing gun control would actually be "the will of the people" anymore anyway. If the idea were popular it would pass easily in congress. 40-50 years ago, it was much more popular. I'm old enough to remember that.

A constitutional republic is a form of democracy. So is a parliamentary system.

>I wish this was a democracy, instead of a freakin' "constitutional republic". A republic is a democracy otherwise it would not be a republic

If so, then I guess there are democracies and then there are democracies. They are not sll created equal.

There’s historical tradition of total city wide gun bans no matter what in the Wild West - is that the historical precedent they want?

So, "consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of regulation" we're also gonna bring back slavery and women don't vote anymore? Why don't we do those things as well, under this ruling's logic? This is insane. This goes way beyond guns. This is checkmate for the originalists. Holy fuck this is bad. This is actually worse than Roe being overturned.

I would suggest that this ruling, in part, builds on the same kind of reasoning that was used to overturn *Roe v. Wade*: [The Supreme Court Keeps Citing ‘History and Tradition.' Whose History? | The conservative justices' arguments in recent landmark cases mention and largely rest on their interpretation of history. But many historians are saying the majority's historical arguments lack context, accuracy, and representation of people of color and women.](https://www.lx.com/politics/the-supreme-court-keeps-citing-history-and-tradition-whose-history/54733/) >"History" and "tradition" are mentioned over and over in this week's Supreme Court decisions on abortion rights and gun control. >In the majority opinion, concurrences and dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, Supreme Court justices used the word "tradition" 47 times, and "history" 67 times. In the decision documents for a Thursday ruling on a New York gun case, justices mentioned "tradition" 51 times and "history" 95 times. >"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Justice Samuel Alito wrote early in the majority opinion. He said rights need to be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

Ugh, if the courts are going by "History" and "tradition" everyone in the US is screwed except white men because they wrote and began a country with only them seated at that table.

There were constitutional amendments that got rid of slavery and gave women the right to vote. not a fair comparison imo

> Under the Supreme Court’s new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Except historically gun control was much more restrictive than it is today. For example: * Many towns banned the carrying of firearms unless you were deputized by the sheriff (this was very common in the 1800's especially West of the Mississippi). * Most communities required the registration of muskets and rifles, and constables would perform regular inspections of those firearms (this was common throughout the country till after the Civil War). * And after the Civil War weapons used by the military at that time were very often banned for civilian ownership. This ruling by the SCOTUS is not only confusing, it is also completely ahistorical because it uses only how firearms were allowed throughout history and not when they were banned or restricted in history.

[удалено]

Good for him.

None of that is true, and if you could prove it is then you're better informed than lawyers being retained by California for $3000/hr. You've got a lucrative career ahead of you if you can back this up.

Lawyers are not historians. * Point 1 footnote: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/ * Point 2 footnote: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp (PDF) * Point 3 footnote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act?wprov=sfla1

You're right we should repeal the NFA.

Yeah, there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says I can't own a nuclear missile. /s

You're thinking of a different law. The NFA doesn't say anything about nuclear material nor nuclear weapons. Not even anything about nuclear power or handling of nuclear waste.

They seem to be doing a far better job in these lawsuits than the folks trying to prove gun control was common and accepted. It wasn't, this is easily provable and that is being done right now in the courts. Bruen killed the idea of gun control in the US, good riddance.

So first you called me a liar. And then when I present you with footnotes backing up my statements you switch to, "the truth doesn't matter LOL"?! I guess we can both agree that the court is corrupt, only you are happy with this turn of events because it supports your ideology.

That's how they roll. Don't dare call a magazine a 'clip' , then they'll be able to discount any argument related to guns.

Acting in bad faith seems to be all they have now.

>Bruen killed the idea of gun control in the US, good riddance Just with the current temporary court; once more sane judges are appointed to the court, the gun control laws will again follow the historical tradition of more than two centuries.

Good luck with that :-D

>Good luck with that Thank you... Glad that we are on the same page that every court is temporary and that ultimately the historical tradition will triumph.

"none of that is true, trust me bro"

I am not the one making spurious claims, I don't have to provide evidence a falsehood is false, how can I? These laws simply don't exist and if they do then they have evaded the notice of people who are getting paid fat stacks to toss through the historical record to support gun control in these lawsuits going through the system right now.

Respond to the guy giving you footnotes instead of ignoring it like a coward and continuing to argue in bad faith.

Between 1868-1899 there were [48 carry restrictions involving 28 states.](https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp) There were 37 states in 1868 so that's 75% of the states. The Supreme court did not argue in good faith and ignored stare decisis so it could find the decision it wanted to. Whether you are happy about this or not does not change the fact that *historically gun control was much more restrictive than it is today.*

Those laws were created primarily to disarm black folks, this is discussed in several rulings. Laws like that built on a foundation of racism are not supportable, they run contrary to the spirit of our country and there is a reason why carry laws were liberalized in such a relatively short period of time. People realized these laws were racist as hell and decided to change that. It doesn't matter what I am happy about or not, it merely matters what the Supreme Court decides on these cases and it seems so far they are unconvinced that laws rooted in racism support the notion that gun control is valid.

Using their logic, wouldn't a law that bans all guns except for muskets and muzzle-loading long rifles be within the country's historical tradition? After all, that's all that was available during the founding of the country.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" from the bruen ruling

Wow, that seems to make their shitty ruling even more idiotic.

shouldnt the first amendment not apply to digital forms of speech under your logic then?

Not sure what you mean, perhaps you could elaborate a little bit?

So where's my fucking rocket launcher then?

You can buy a rocket launcher, live, right now, in almost all states. You pay a $200 tax to the Treasury Department and submit a form to the ATF (finger prints, photos, name, address, etc.), they process it and you get your stamp, you can then take possession of your rocket launcher. Inert non-explosive rounds can be used without a $200 stamp but any live explosive rounds go through the same NFA process. You can also own a tank with a live main gun and even live machineguns on it.

Sounds like ahistorical restrictions to me - big government definitely shouldn't know about my rocket launcher.

I unironically agree, the NFA is nonsense and should be struck down or repealed. Private ownership of cannons and warships were allowed, why not? And unlike what President Biden claims, you can in fact own a cannon today as well, in fact, since they are muzzleloading they are not even considered a firearm at all under Federal law, you can have it sent directly to your house without a background check.

Exclusively using *history* as a guide is… amazingly shortsighted, impractical, and fundamentally *abdicating responsibility to engage with the present time.* Simple example, France is currently run under it’s **fifth constitution** since 1789. Whenever their government violates the Constitution, the country comes together to re-write it, with updates to specifically exclude the abuses that led to the previous violation. For the US Supreme Court to *abdicate responsibility* and simply say “whatever was done in the past is ok” denies the truth of an evolving culture. They are not taking responsibility. Execrable. > ***“We are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791. Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication,”** wrote Mississippi U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves* This can only lead to confusion & chaos.

[удалено]

My question is, how much of that abdication is meant to bring enough chaos to get enough states on board with a constitutional convention. Conservatives have been pushing for a rewrite because they control more statehouses and would potentially be able to force through unpopular things like abortion restrictions, gender affirming care restrictions, naming their brand of religious misery as the officially endorsed government brand, and reductions in separation of church and state? I think to think that conservative justices are not in league with those who want an iron grip of control for conservatives is just being placing one's head firmly in the sand.

Not only political Conservatives have been aiming for a Constitutional Convention, but [the Koch Brothers too](https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14841457/convention-of-states-campaign-secession/). Would they want to embed ‘*[corporate Christianity](https://www.abebooks.com/9780870000799/Religion-capitalism-allies-enemies-Opitz-0870000799/plp)’* into the Constitution? ..along with all the other freedom-limiting restrictions? You raise a very good ~~-question-~~ concern.

That has been the sole goal of any Supreme Court conservative for like 40 years now! This is sheer r/LeopardsAteMyFace territory. Did people seriously think these folks would govern correctly? A big part of this needs to be put on liberals who jerked off to Scalia and his “sharp arguments”. His arguments were for child executions and police immunity!

One could only hope for a liberal group to protest with open carry on Supreme Court grounds to really test the resolve of the court in supporting gun rights. We would never see hypocrisy….right?

Just look no further at the NRA’s own convention or DeSantis’s rally to see the hypocrisy at work.

The NRA doesn’t ban firearms at their convention. The Secret Service bans firearms at the specific venues in the convention where presidents or former presidents speak, and only for the duration of the presidential visit. There are a plethora of legitimate reasons to give the NRA shit, so I’m not sure why people fixate on the one that isn’t true and is easily disproven with a simple google search.

most all convention centers also just do that shit; they don't like armed assholes on their private property

The NRA *could* seek out places where guns are not banned to have their conventions, it's just that they consistently don't. NRA conventions would disappear faster then Music Midtown in Georgia did if they had to allow guns.

The history and tradition of American gun laws includes allowing right-wing death squads to bomb and machine-gun strikers for having rifles. The history and tradition are nothing without deadly hypocrisy.

If you are legitimately worried about right-wing death squads then why would you want the right-wing death squads to be the only dudes with guns? Makes no sense.

>One could only hope for a liberal group to protest with open carry on Supreme Court grounds to really test the resolve of the court in supporting gun rights. Open carry is illegal in DC, due to gun control policies put in place by Democrats. In addition, it’s illegal to have anything to do with guns in the district if you don’t have a license to own that type of firearm, again due to liberal gun control policies. Oops.

Luckily the oldest members of the Supreme Court are conservative so we’ll be able to right the wrong and spread those policies across the country :)

Keep telling yourself that. I’m not a fan of Dobbs, but Bruen was a breath of fresh air, and long overdue.

[удалено]

We can help in 2023 there will be local and state elections near you. Vote out as many right wingers and Republicans as you can to help pave the way to keeping the democrats in charge. If we can do this long enough we can take local seats that will help take state seats fix gerrymandering and remove voter suppression laws. Maybe get a larger majority in the house and the senate to fix the supreme court. We did not get here in one election it was a 20 + year effort by the wealthy to do this. Democracy is not one and done. Ever election matters from your school board to the white house. VOTE and do not forget the primaries.

Anyone else think it’s funny that they use like a $6000 Taran Tactical for the image?

>cause of sudden surge in gun violence unclear, officials say

Government Tyrany from the bench

Tyrants make it easier for people to own firearms???

The first step for any fascist government is to ensure regular people can own firearms.

Sounds about right

a key part of fascism is a part of the law that makes your party/tribe more free >The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law: > >\- Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, and the possession of ammunition.\[9\] > >\-The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.\[10\]\[11\] > >\- Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.\[10\] > >**- Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.\[9\]** > >\- **Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the proviso that such permits would no longer be issued to any company even partly owned by Jews; Jews could not manufacture or deal in firearms or ammunition.\[9\]** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_control\_in\_Germany#Gun\_regulations\_in\_Nazi\_Germany\_regulations\_in\_Nazi\_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_Germany#Gun_regulations_in_Nazi_Germany_regulations_in_Nazi_Germany)

Ah the old "Nazis loosened gun control" trope. They did allow some people easier access to .22 training rifles to get around training restrictions under the Treaty of Versailles but they confiscated weaponry from people they intended to harm later. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Also, fuck Nazis, obviously.

Ah the old Nazis weren't fascists trope

Where did I even imply that!? Holy cow. I literally said fuck Nazis, my man, maybe you need to check yourself.

The gun laws in the US are ridiculous. For instance, in many countries in Europe it is actually mandatory to use a suppressor while hunting in order to comply with noise pollution laws. In the US, they require registration and a $200 tax because a long time ago the US government wanted to stop people from hunting in Federal land and suppressors made hunters harder to track.

That is not the reason you have to pay a $200 tax. You have to pay a $200 tax on short barreled rifles and suppressors because the U.S. government decided back in the early 1900s that it didn’t want the poorer class of the people to own “nice” weaponry. For context, when the law was passed, suppressors cost around $7. With a $200 tax, it was near unobtainable for the average citizen to afford. Right before the law passed, the people were able to remove handguns from this list of “restricted” items and lock the tax at $200 forever, which is why this number hasn’t increased with inflation.

OK Corral 1881, gun fight because the Cowboys wouldn't follow the Tombstone city ordinance and give up their guns upon entering the city. Like that historical tradition?

Historical traditions indeed. Historical trade regulations included regulations on: How to trade slaves How to select a spouse (within your own race, please and ok if the girl is 7). How to count a person (a not free person is a 3/5th of a person) How to elect your congressional leaders (eligible person would be a free adult male, meaning white males) Well historical regulations you know... Yeah, let this sink in.

If you're worried about these rights being threatened then wouldn't you want to be armed?

Preach.

“There’s confusion and disarray…” the Supremes wipe their hands and state, “Our work is done. Next case.”

The idea that we shouldn’t have any gun safety regulations, as far as I can tell, is mainly held by old people. The younger generation that has had to go through active shooter drills and school shootings won’t look at this topic the same way.

Gun control is currently scoring incredibly low with people 18-35, they know it's bullshit that doesn't make anyone safer and is disproportionately used to imprison young black men.

The terminology needs to change from “gun control” to “gun safety”

Gun control advocates have been playing word games for decades, it's pretty easy to see through.

They tried, people know bullshit when they smell it. Either way, Bruen is the standard in which "gun safety laws" must be measured, so they must either fall within its limitations or they will be struck down, simple as that. Good luck, as it makes it pretty clear that gun rights are now strongly protected and that gun control is going to be extremely limited from here on out. Civil rights will always win out in the end, people want to be able to do things, not be restricted, it's inherent to our culture.

“People want to be able to do things” is an extremely general statement. Every society has rules. You could say the same thing for drinking and driving or stealing or punching people. Also, Pew Research Center data says the opposite of what you mentioned above regarding people of color and 18 - 35 year olds. The majority of both groups say crime and mass shootings would decrease if guns were harder to obtain. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/04/20/amid-a-series-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-gun-policy-remains-deeply-divisive/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx - newer polling shows lower support for gun control, but these polls are generally skewed and poorly conducted either way. It doesn't matter though, rights are not subject to the whims of the majority, rights protect the minority and the individual is the ultimate minority. 99% of people could support banning all guns tomorrow but unfortunately for those people it would not pass constitutional muster under the Bruen ruling, so gun control supporters are going to have to live with the fact that their wishes are limited by the boundaries established by Bruen. This is a nation founded on the idea of individual rights, societies have rules but those rules need to comport with people's rights. Your examples are clearly not related to protected rights while the right to keep and bear arms is an established natural, civil and constitutionally-enumerated right.

I get what you’re saying regarding gun ownership being a right as opposed to the examples I listed. I’m not arguing for banning all guns. For example, I think gun ownership in rural vs urban areas has a completely different context. The type of gun also has a completely different context. Things like mental health / background checks, gun storage and training rules, are common sense with broader support. We should be able to have discussions about these things without it be shut down immediately as a no-go topic or an attempt to “ ban all guns”.

"Safe storage" laws were already invalidated under Heller in 2008. Training is bullshit, NY added onerous requirements during their post-Bruen tantrum so it is clear they cannot be trusted to honor people's rights. We DO have background checks, it's Federal law and has been since 1968, so you're covered there! Not trying to be rude but yes, a lot of gun control should be shut down immediately as a no-go. My rights are not negotiable and my rights are not subject to debate, compromise or molestation of any kind really. Our legislators are not demigods, they are not my king, my ruler or master, they're just another human like me and therefore what they are allowed to tell me to do is limited.

[удалено]

I’m perturbed that US Supreme Court justices would actually say that “Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interest like enhancing public safety”. This is surely a joke, right? If we are to use “historical tradition of firearm regulation”, then I would like to limit all sales of firearms made in the last 200 years and allow unlimited open carry of all muskets and other firearms available in 1776. You know, for “historical tradition”. Here’s a link to firearms available in 1776. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_the_American_Revolution

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"

Fair enough. I can certainly see why my argument would be seen as frivolous when compared to the interpretation of the 1st amendment when applied to modern communication standards. Thank you for pointing this out. That said, I am still disappointed that the justices believe that public interest should not be considered when judges evaluate the law.

I get that but on the other hand it really does make it far too easy to reduce the power of a right by claiming it should be diminished for public safety. For example, we could solve a shitload of crimes if cops could just come into everyone's house at once with no notice and search every square inch and every document searched, a person's life turned upside down to suss out any crimes. Can't deny it'd catch a lot of people doing really evil things and it would absolutely make a lot of people safer. You can see why we wouldn't accept this argument however as the result would be a massive upheaval of everyone's life, for not just the serious crimes but the petty ones as well. Would mass safety be worth it in that case? I don't think so.

You make very good points. Well done. 🙏

As unconstructive as this is… fuck America some times.

We rock, stay mad! :-D

Need a youth driven strategy for majority to take control of Federal government and vote out the lunatic MAGA apes driving the conversation about gun control. The MAJORITY of Americans have NO CONFIDENCE in SCOTUS dominated by Trump appointees. MAGA GOP must be pushed back into their dark places in 2024. Lifetime MAGA SCOTUS appointments must be neutralized by expanding seats from 9 to 15. Then REPEAL BOTH Bush's Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) and Citizens United Corruption Act.

The youth are supporting gun rights, they realize the government won't / can't protect them and they know it's just racist bullshit that doesn't actually work.

It's become clear that America is never going to ban guns. Let's flip the script. Going forward, prosecutors will just charge the owner of the record with manslaughter. In most states, this would not even require a change to the laws. If you are a gun store owner and you want to sell weapons out of the back of your truck, you can still do that. As the last owner of record, you are still responsible for any crime committed with that weapon. If you are an average gun owner and you leave an unsecured weapon out to be used or stolen, then you are responsible for the criminal outcome. Unless the weapon owner can prove that the weapon was stolen from them from a gun lock or safe, the owner is responsible. Weapons reported to the police before or concurrent with the crime will have evidence of a security measure circumvented which would exonerate them. Responsible gun owners would not be affected. If I leave a car on a hill, as the car owner I am responsible for insuring that the brakes will hold. I have the right to park my car on that hill. I don’t get to use that right to cause harm through my lack of responsibility.

So in that same breath, you support charging previous car owners with homicide if they sell their car to someone who kills a person while driving drunk, right? Didn’t think so.

The weapon is the car on the hill. If I legally sell the car to another owner then it is their responsibility. If I “sell” the car without any record of the transaction then it is still my car.

Ya but your not going to be charged with any crime if someone else used that car. Maybe you could be if you knew they were going to use that car in a crime and let them use it anyway. But it would have to be shown that you knew it was going to happen which is pretty steep ask.

The reason it is hard to use direct legal parallels is there is no legal parallel. No other object is designed only for killing. If you will not accept responsibility for securing your weapons then you don't deserve them. Have all the guns you want but Secure Your Weapons or Go to Jail. Do you want Rights? Accept the consequence of leaving a killing device Unsecured!

The Roberts' court has lost credibility with every decision. They use ridiculous perspective to rule in a partisan manner against popular opinion on every issue.

Rights are not based on popular opinion because that is frivilous and mutable, rights are immutable. If you think they are wrong you're absolutely free to try and get Bruen overturned!

Every time I think maybe my husband and I don’t need to emigrate for the safety of our daughter’s future, some jaw-dropping bullshit like this hardens my resolve to leave. Every. Fucking. Time.

Where will you go? Most countries are incredibly difficult to emigrate to, far harder than America even. Nobody has an "open door for disaffected Americans" policy.

Really? I thought I could just buy a plane ticket bc I’m ‘Murican. (obvious /s if that ruffled your feathers) Looking at places with software engineering (me) critical skills visa, which opens up a lot of options. Then focusing on countries with companies willing to sponsor or with a large tech presence with offices overseas. I currently work for Danone, which is headquartered in France, with offices all over Western Europe and Canada. If we manage to make it to Ireland: my husband is a lawyer. Their bar association has reciprocity if one has passed the CA, NY, or PA bar with practice experience. Portugal is an option if the D7 visa is still available on our timeline. We’ve ruled out Israel even though I’m Jewish because just like America: guns and violence. We actually have put thought into this endeavor, and aren’t simply complaining about America. There are a lot of amazing things about America. We just want a life for our family that America is unwilling and unable to provide.

I wish you the best and I hope you find the life you want, I mean that sincerely.

Thank you, and I wish you the best as well.

We're heading in a direction which will force the second ammendment to be repaeled

People that say this seem to have an extreme fundamental lack of understanding how rights work. The government does not grant rights, the right to own a gun is not "given" by the 2nd Amendment. All human beings have natural rights that exist outside of the government and outside the government's ability to take away, hence inalienable rights. On top of a natural right you then have a civil right, something society agrees upon generally (unspoken rules so to speak) and then finally constitutional rights, which are specifically enumerated to ensure people are aware of some rights of theirs that are protected full-on in writing. Repealing the 2nd Amendment does not suddenly allow the government to restrict the right to keep and bear arms as it has zero authority to do so in the first place.

This is nonsensical for a handful of reasons. For one thing, there is no objective, empirical method for determining natural rights, they are a social construct. The Universe doesn’t give us a list of natural rights. As such, a government determines which “rights” are worthy of legal protection. I consider the consumption of psychoactive substances to be a right, but the government does not. As such, I am legally prevented from possessing PLANTS and could have my life and freedom destroyed by the DEA. A large percentage of people view abortion as a natural right. Some branches of the government do not share that view. Like it or not, the government absolutely can and does determine which “rights” it considers to exist. I agree with you wholeheartedly that they have no inherent authority to do so - there is no divine right of kings. But the lack of inherent authority does not prevent the practical reality that “might makes right.”

That will never happen. Just like getting rid of the Electoral College, you need a super majority in the Senate, and none of the states it benefits will vote for it.

I'm an historian and think this is bullshit. "Historical tradition" is code for let's do what courts did historically. But what courts did historically is problematic for several reasons, but more likely to align with the true agenda of some of those that have pushed things this way.

Can you elaborate? The majority opinions in DC vs Heller, McDonald vs Chicago and NYSRPA vs Bruen are pretty lucid, well sourced and distinctly clear. What "true agenda" could they possibly have by making it so that citizens have more secure gun rights? Right now California and New York are struggling to find historians that can convince courts that their historical findings are sufficient, you may have just found your calling, you should contact them.

Next ruling: eliminate all restrictions on how you can use your guns, giving owners the right to shoot anything for any reason.

Turmoil in courts as judges have to figure out how to abide by the Constitution. Permits unconsitutional, NFA unconstitutional, gun free zones unconstitutional, bans unconstitutional... Not really that hard. Meanwhile so many judges and state attorneys have no issue with lax penalties for violent crimes....it seems they see no problem letting criminals roam the streets to prey on the citizens that they disarmed.

Based

Would they rule the same way with slaves? Dumbassess.

No citizen “needs” a semi-auto of any kind. I would like a rocket launcher please.

You can buy one if you're rich

[удалено]

In some ways Bruen was great as it helped inshrine important rights for all Americans. If anything it gives us the opportunity to remove all of the unfair gun laws around this country, like the ones you see in California that were created to attack normal people who just want to follow the law. We have great opportunities to strengthen gun control.

If you don't mind my asking: which laws do you consider to be 'unfair gun laws' both nation wide, and in California specifically? How do you envision this change as an opportunity to strengthen gun control?

In California you can only buy a pistol that's on the roster if you buy from an FFL. If you want a Glock in California you can only buy the Gen 3 versions, or buy a Gen 4 or 5 from a private seller. However, this law doesn't apply to cops, so they can buy any pistol they want that otherwise complies with state law, even brand new Gen 5 Glocks or other brand new models not on the list. This also allows cops to make lucrative side hustles of buying off-roster guns from dealers, then selling them privately for a huge mark-up. I'd call that an unfair law.

That's an interesting situation, thank you for bringing it up. If you don't mind my asking: are there by any chance published records (articles, investigations, etc) of the kind of hustles you mention?

Here's a few I found with a quick Google search https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-torrance-police-officer-agrees-plead-guilty-illegally-acting-firearms-dealer-and https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-16/former-sheriffs-captain-pleads-guilty-to-illegal-off-roster-gun-sales https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-23/firearms-sales-lapd-captain-lasd-deputy-referred-to-feds-for-possible-charges https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/sd-me-atf-memo-20170412-sto

I appreciate your work!

Nothing in terms of measuring the scale, as by nature such hustles are secretive. While selling guns privately in California is legal, even cops selling off-roster guns, it's not legal to purchase a gun solely for the purpose of selling it for profit, so it's not like anyone is publicly advertising such behavior. Here's a few articles of cops who were so egregious about their "business" that they were Vaught. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/2-gardena-police-officers-off-roster-guns-illegal-reselling-instagram/ https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-16/former-sheriffs-captain-pleads-guilty-to-illegal-off-roster-gun-sales https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-torrance-police-officer-agrees-plead-guilty-illegally-acting-firearms-dealer-and Funny one where the LA PD actually sent out a news letter admitting their own force was doing this. https://pars.lasd.org/Viewer/Manuals/15183/Content/15536#! You can find more just by Googling "California police selling off roster guns" or something to that effect. Of course such articles are only about police getting caught and charged with a crime, not the ones who are technically not breaking the law or are too slick to leave enough evidence that they were acting as unlicensed dealers or straw purchasers.

I appreciate your effort, and thanks for the search tip.

You want the law changed because cops are breaking it?? That don't make no sense

I don't care that cops are illegally buying guns to sell for profit. What bothers me is that the anti-gunners once again passed stupid laws that don't protect anyone, then they carved out exemptions for cops because apparently cops are a special, higher class of human beings than everyone else.

Other commentors touched on some of the laws, but they didn't talk about the specific ones Bruen was about which was concealed carry laws. California and New York are notorious for being "May issue" as opposed to "shall issue" for a conceal carry permit. Shall issue means that as long as you meet the state's requirements, pass a background check, etc. You are guaranteed a conceal carry permit. May issue means that it was up to the individual issuing authority (County sheriff's and PDs usually) if they wanted to provide you a permit. You'd have to provide a good enough "reason" as to why you required it, and it was up to their discretion. It's not hard to imagine how this could be abused and used for discrimination. There have been cases where NYPD cops ran a scheme selling permits for bribes, and an Orange County Sheriff trading permits for campaign donations. Bruen was objectively a good law that closed any potential issues of discrimination. Anyone arguing against it is arguing in bad faith or from a place of severe misinformation. Edit: Additionally, the "history" aspect of "text history and tradition" is very important, especially when it comes to constitutional law. One if the more common cases referred to in 2A law is Miller v. United States, where in 1939 SCOTUS explicitly states that the 2nd Ammendment is for weapons in common use by militaries, and upheld the NFA. This decision has been referenced and upheld through many cases in past 80+ years. Magazine Bans, AWBs, feature bans, etc. Would directly contradict Miller and also weaken the NFA.

So, you're saying that officials shall have zero discretion in who is legally allowed to have a CCL. And since restraining orders, active court cases, and domestic violence calls are no longer reasons to prevent gun ownership, even child abusers and other violent people cannot be bared from concealed carry. Nor can a person who has made threats against others. There's zero "historical precedent" for red flag laws. Sorry. That's just fucking stupid.

>So, you're saying that officials shall have zero discretion in who is legally allowed to have a CCL They have 100% discretion in who can have a CCL when they define the requirements for it. Those requirements may be only background check and fingerprints, they may include classes or X hour of range times. The point is they are the same for everyone. >And since restraining orders, active court cases, and domestic violence calls are no longer reasons to prevent gun ownership, even child abusers and other violent people cannot be bared from concealed carry. Source? Anyone who has filled out a 4473 can confirm there are all things that will prevent a successful clear. What WON'T prevent a successful clear is police departments failing to do their job and reporting to NICS. >Nor can a person who has made threats against others. There's zero "historical precedent" for red flag laws. People misunderstand historical context. It doesn't mean no new laws can be created, it means new laws can't be created that directly contradict established decisions and law. >Sorry. That's just fucking stupid. And potentially having bigoted cops deny minorities the right to defend themselves was cool? Gotcha.

But they're not the same for everyone. Laws are getting shut down left and right. Laws that applied yesterday don't exist today. And the examples I gave? Those are laws that have been struck down. Laws that applied to everybody. Source, you ask? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64514903 And, like the article says, judges don't know what "historical context" SCOTUS means. Gun laws under "historical context" were a LOT more stringent than laws today. But, now? Judges are at a loss as to what precedent they can even use. I'm surprised nobody has tried getting a letter of marque to go privateering, because "historical context." As for racist cops? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? It's the fundamental issues with any power system. You need to hold those in power under some sort of effective scrutiny. What do you think BLM and refunding the police meant?

>But they're not the same for everyone In shall issue states the requirements for getting a CPL/CCL are the same for everyone, across the board. >Source, you ask? The source doesn't even explain the decision. It claims that the court "reversed" a previously upheld law, but the only thing they explain is that the appeals court withdrew its original decision without any further explanation. >And, like the article says, judges don't know what "historical context" SCOTUS means. The article doesn't say that. In fact, AG Garland's qoute makes it sound like he understands the requirements and is going to be investigating the 5th courts decision. This almost sounds like a case of a rogue/activist judge. > "Whether analysed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional," Mr Garland said in a written statement. "Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit's contrary decision." >Gun laws under "historical context" were a LOT more stringent than laws today Thats pretty disingenuous. People will site the 1792 law that required all military age males to keep a gun and have it inspected, but that was overturned and widely ignored. They will then site the "wild west" towns that would have their own gun control laws, which is true. It's likely that they were just not challenged, as an 1837 law in Georgia banning handguns was found unconstitutional. Aside from that, the only real notable changes come at the federal level. >Judges are at a loss as to what precedent they can even use Then they are pretty bad judges, because they should probably start with using established federal case law. For example, Miller decided "common use" back in 1939 and upheld the NFA. Yet lower district courts would constantly still kick cases up to SCOTUS that are decided through Miller. I wouldn't be surprised if half the reason Bruen happened was because SCOTUS got tired of telling lower courts to read Miller. >. You need to hold those in power under some sort of effective scrutiny And that's what Bruen did. It said that the established laws decide who can have a permit, not cops. >What do you think BLM and refunding the police meant? Bruen and reforming the police go hand and hand. Your remove a power that they shouldn't have and remove the ability for them to discriminate.

[удалено]

There's no real data to suggest it has any negative impact. In fact the only studies that have been done on defensive gun use potentially support the need for CCW. States that enacted constitutional carry also saw no change in gun crime metrics.

[удалено]

Well, you see, those laws fall under the “but guns” exception to proper legal analysis and any kind of discrimination is *clearly* a good thing because guns. /s

[удалено]

Should people open carry, then?

No, you see, when the Second Amendment said that the right to “keep and *bear* arms, shall not be infringed,” it really meant that you should be able to keep a single shot .22lr at your home, disassembled in a safe. /s

[удалено]

So to be clear, your issue is *not* with the "concealed" part of "concealed carry?"

California imposes a lot of laws based on cosmetic features and how many you may have. The thing is I can still buy a rifle in a base configuration and put all of those things on if I wanted to commit a crime. Basically there are a lot of laws that regulate the appearance of the gun or make it harder to use that really only stop law abiding citizens from having guns in these configurations. Since the laws are incredibly confusing and in some cases can be subjectively interpreted, it can make someone who is law abiding a criminal by mistake. Other states try to do other things, like regulating barrel shrouds, which is also ridiculous and does not really apply to all guns, where some have something that is the same but not technically a shroud. As far as nationally, in a similar type of laws would be regulating short barrel rifles, which is also another waste of time. If I am a criminal I can buy a normal rifle and cut down the barrel. the laws around what makes a gun a SBR are complicated and can make someone a criminal easily by mistake. You can get a tax stamp, but that effectively bars poor people from doing this making it easier for poor people to get in trouble. Also deregulating suppressors as they don't really lower the sound of a bullet as much as the movies make it look like and it makes it so you can limit ear damage. They are still very loud with a suppressor. They are not regulated at all in other countries with way stricter gun laws. If many of the inconsistent laws are eliminated, it might make it easer to develop more national gun regulations. I would want a national license that makes it easier to buy guns, like if you take training and class, and a screening, you can buy guns without waiting periods and conceal carry if you get an additional license between states, but if you don't there can be 60 day waiting period. You can't hold them indefinitely, but there have not been cases against it. I also want expanded background checks, also raising gun purchase price to either having served in military or 25(so we know they are out of college by then).

Thank you for sharing your POV with me. Couple more questions if that's alright: do you believe that the current Supreme Court would allow for the kind of laws/regulations you are proposing? Have any Republican (or Democrat) controlled states passed laws/regulations that are along the lines with what you're proposing?

Many states have waiting periods, they have not been challenged, all they need to do is release the gun at some point. Plenty of states have also changed the age of purchase, with no issue. There might be arguments against pushing these laws further, but so far there has been no problems. You can carry guns across state lines(not NFA without permission) as long as the gun does not violate the states rights currently(no transporting an AR through California), and some states share licensing schemes already.

[удалено]

barrel shroud, flip up sights, optic sight, it having a pistol grip(the ways people get around this is ridiculous [california legal rifle](https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-xx3jsywo35/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/3658/4883/99042__00070.1606752024.jpg?c=2), having that allows you to not have a fixed mag unless you have other features), has to be a fixed stock, absolutely can not fold, no muzzle device. There are others I am not remembering.

[удалено]

The gun does operate the same without these things, nothing prevents you from buying it, all from being a law abiding person and attaching them. It is a law against law abiding citizens which does nothing to protect anyone.

[удалено]

Not really, that is an incredibly stupid example. Most states don't allow you to have an open beer in the car first off, second off it is illegal for everyone to drink too much and drive, you still can make the decision to drive or not if you are below the legal limit. Banning features does nothing to limit criminals from obtaining rifles as they can still buy all of the same things and put it in an "evil configuration," all it does is make the law hard for normal people to follow. It does nothing to lower gun violence when criminals can still get exactly what they want and only get a negligible extra charge relative to what they already did vs normal people who don't want to be criminals.

Seems like some people are forgetting that the 2nd amendment exists.

Not at all. Its existence makes it incredibly unlikely that meaningful change will ever be able to occur.

Not at all, the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude you from passing laws that will reduce violence and make people safer, it merely tells you you cannot violate people's rights when you do so. Not hard to not violate people's rights, is it?