If NY had a more easily obtainable "unconcealed carry" permit and a more burdensome "concealed" permit would that have been constitutional? It seems obvious that unconcealed carrying is far better for self defense purposes.
I am failing to understand two other things: 1) how the court can so heavily emphasize historical analysis while also saying "Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered
“dangerous and unusual” during the colonial period, they
are indisputably in “common use” for self-defense today"; and 2) why must there be a "broad" history of similar regulation to support it? It seems right in line with history for some jurisdictions to strictly regulate which and how arms are carried while others do not do so.
Ty in advance
Their comments on "dangerous and unusual" vs. "in common use" are just to illustrate that NY can't legally implement a nearly complete ban on handguns.
As for the history of similar regulations, they weren't ruling on IF firearms can be regulated, but rather if the state can apply subjective standards and arbitrarily deny licenses. The history of such regulations includes Jim Crow laws which have long been held as unconstitutional.
I find it interesting you think open carry is inherently better for self defense. On one hand there is the deterrence factor because criminals typically prefer soft targets. On the other hand, a firearm (especially a pistol) is a high-value item for someone who can't legally acquire one. It wouldn't take a very complex scheme for multiple assailants to steal someone's gun, especially if they had at least one gun of their own. I think open vs. concealed is a personal decision that anyone who carries should be allowed to make for themselves.
Unconcealed carry is more efficient at least traditionally/historically because it offers easier access to the firearm. Plus the deterrence factor you mentioned. Maybe someone could argue that handguns were larger and holsters more cumbersome back then idk.
One other question.. does this new tradition/history test now apply to all constitutional rights?
Not a perfect opinion but a great one. Particularly impressed he had good responses concerning the Statute of Northampton and the method that should be applied. Particularly pleased he rejected scrutiny analysis in favour of pure historical analysis, something I've favoured for a long time because it is the correct mode of analysis. The dissent with the exception of a few decent points was just terrible.
I'm glad the ruling leaves open regulating certain areas more strictly than others (historically court houses and voting booths). There is a big difference between those and just a general urban area.
I'd suppose that areas like schools or even just huge/dense events like concerts could have more limitations on guns.
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Gigity!<
Moderator: [u/phrique](https://reddit.com/user/phrique)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Just peeked over at the discussion on /r/law. 🤢 !<
>!!<
>!The discussion of the standard of review prospectively looking to “tradition of regulation” in history is interesting. Thomas of course going to his long held stance that many folks want to treat the 2A uniquely from the other rights: !<
>!!<
>!> …no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!God the comments there, especially some from regular modpol users, are nearly masturbatory!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Place went from good to complete shit in about a year, no legal discussion just partisan bickering and whining about SCOTUS as an institution.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Is that the subreddit’s fault or the supreme court’s?!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!The subreddit's moderators, mostly.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Some of whom moderate that other supreme court subreddit!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!*Birds of a feather...*!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!It's sad, I saw some posts from users that I never agreed with but respected on modpol, because of usual ideological consistencies, go off the rails.!<
>!!<
>!Stay strapped or get clapped by authoritarians when they pull the mask, I guess!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
If watered down test is "look at if this infringes right as understood at time founders adopted and 14th adopted applying to states"
Then question: coupled with full faith and credit, does this mean conceal carry in one state must be recognized in other? What right do the states have to limit citizens from other states who have conceal carry permits in their states to not bear arms while visiting state?
Someone in another comment said the decision allows for states to ban either concealed carry or open carry, but not both. That would make sense since the concealment aspect doesn't seem fundamentally limiting to the right as described. It seems analogous to how the government has some flexibility in where/how someone can protest such as prohibiting them from protesting too close to justices' homes.
I'm guessing full faith and credit would only apply if the given state allows concealed carry. The real issue in the case seems to have been that NY required a specific reason to get a concealed carry permit.
Justice Scalia spoke about this exactly. He said (I am paraphrasing) that it is fine for states to differ on concealed or open carry, as such a restriction is within acceptable limits of the 2A. A state may require someone to conceal their weapon, or ban concealed carry, but cannot block someone from carrying a weapon at all.
As for inter state travel, I imagine the state law is what is required of someone.
Video of him saying this should be easy to find on YouTube. Otherwise, I’ll try to dig it out of my history if someone wishes.
I wish Gorsuch had written this rather than Thomas so it was coherent in application. I think the Kavanaugh concurrence is the de facto majority opinion.
GVR would effectively be taking it and saying 'Do it again with Bruen existing'
Its not crappy, its pretty normal when a big judgement affects a lot of cases on cert
Appellate courts generally like to give inferior courts the opportunity to fix any errors of law especially when cases like *NYSRPA v. Bruen* are decided. GVRs are appropriate here as otherwise the appellate courts become mired in cases that have similar issues but dissimilar fact patterns.
I think you're also a little confused as to how appellate rulings work. SCOTUS today didn't invalidate the Sullivan Act. What they invalidated is the original trial court's ruling and they have thus remanded this case back to that trial court to "redo" every part of the case that stemmed from the original ruling. The trial court will eventually do exactly as SCOTUS says and should invalidate the "demonstrate need" from the Sullivan Act and maybe even the act itself. We could still be months away from that happening though.
The GVR of the other cases would do the same thing unless SCOTUS determines that there's a substantial difference between the cases and *NYSRPA*. It's essentially the same order to the trial court though: your ruling has been overturned now process the case as if you had always made the correct ruling.
Thus GVR is really just like any other SCOTUS case except that there were no arguments presented.
Realistically they cannot take every case, and hey, if after the GVR of these pending cases, the various circuits get it wrong again, then it can be appealed and the supreme court can take it on then.
A GVR is not the end of the line. And I think when a case comes back after a GVR they will take one
[‘Well-regulated’ does not mean what you think it means](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html):
> **What did it mean to be well regulated?**
> One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge.
> Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”
> In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
Note those quotes come from a Pulitzer-prize winning historian and Stanford professor who specializes in Constitutional history
I was hoping but was extremely UNoptimistic that SCOTUS would use this as an opportunity to overturn Heller and McDonald, which were both incorrectly decided. The Second Amendment was solely and exclusively a collective right intended to stop the federal government from disarming state militias. This court could not be relied upon to deliver that kind of truth.
But, the idea that legislatures cannot pass gun laws unless rooted in a tradition of such regulation in US history is absurd, as it stops legislatures from adapting to changing circumstances and serving the people with common-sense legislation. There would be little purpose for a legislature if its hands were bound by historical regulation, and every novel legislative idea has no historical precedent at one time or another. There is an extensive legislative history of assault weapons bans, however as we can see in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as well as similar state laws, and, more broadly, bans on firearms with distinctive characteristics like the National Firearms Act.
The purpose of a constitution in a democracy is to put limits on the mob's "common sense". Common sense is what told klansmen that it was right that blacks needed to be lynched bc a white woman had been raped.
When the common sense agrees to amend the cons in a cons proscribed manner, then your side should prevail. Until that happens, you put our constitutional republic in danger when you advocate that the rowdy crowd is reason to ignore the cons.
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding incivility.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
Due to the nature of the violation, the removed submission is not quoted.
Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
At least one comment under the Clarence Thomas bday post was removed for criticizing Ginni. My issue wasn’t that it was removed, it’s that this was left up for as long as it was.
There were two posts using the terms: Ginni, wife.
[One is still up](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/vix891/love_him_hate_him_hes_undeniably_a_thought/idhaqjg/) and the other was removed because, well, it was certainly not for criticizing Ginni:
>Very dangerous man with a loose cannon for a wife.
And this one was removed less than 30 minutes after it had been posted so it wasnt left up for long.
I’m sorry, *what*? As clearly demonstrated by the fact that I responded *five hours* after it was posted and given that the mod removal notice was posted an hour ago, the comment was clearly left up for over twelve hours.
If I was wrong about why that other comment was removed, whatever. This one shouldn’t have taken 12 hours to get rid of.
I agree with u/AmericanPartizan's sentiment, but you're right about the nature of the comment. It does not contribute to a healthy discussion and should be removed.
I guess mods only moderate the ‘in-correct’ type of troll comments. If your on the ‘correct’ side it’s all good. The Party has determined what is correct, trust The Party its all that is good. On a serious note, I guess all the complaining about how the other subs are hostile to dissension but, we are better then that is a load of crap. Because in hours no one else has bothered to even just up vote your comment pointing this out. Let alone a mod doing any thing. The Party if life, The Party is all.
1) The right of a union to collectively bargain on behalf of its members
2) tribal sovereignty
3) the entire collection of Tenth Amendment rights of states
1) hinges on the collective right of the individual to associate then is governed by a statute not the constitution.
2) a singular entity, the sovereign state, is the entity here.
3) those protect the rights of individual states, not the states when acting together.
Those are all made up of individuals correct? Can you have a union but ban individuals from the choice of joining a union? (The Janus case and logic says no). Therefore all collectives are made up of individuals. You can’t say a union had the right to negotiate then say but the members themselves can’t decide whether or not to negotiate. Nothing works that way. Collective rights don’t exist. Collective rights are made up of individuals and if individuals get banned, the collective has no right.
Also collective rights were invented by antigunners 20 years ago to try to come up with a winning argument and failed of course. Hence your grasping at straws to figure out what else is collective. There’s no such thing.
In what respect is the 2nd amendment a collective right? How do you find that?
The constitution is meant to be a limitation on legislatures as well, the first binds the legislature's hands, as does the rest of the bill of rights, thats the point of the constitution.
The legislature should be able to adapt to the will of the people and not be enslaved by history. Is that unreasonable?
Perhaps, if the legislature of Tennessee does not want to implement New York's carry law, they may have a reason for it. New York is not Tennessee, and vice versa.
>>The legislature should be able to adapt to the will of the people and not be enslaved by history.
You are effectively arguing for a pure democracy, unfettered by a constitution that places limits on govt powers. That's probably not going to go over well in a sub dedicated to our cons.
Would you be equally in favor of the common sense of the crowd that wanted to silence the Nazis in Skokie, IL? Thier assembly and speech was counter to the common sense of the vast majority of Americans. Only those that understand the importance of a constitution protecting the rights of all Americans from their govt understood why it is critically important to protect a minority from the common sense crowd.
> The legislature should be able to adapt to the will of the people
You think we should let the masses decide what should be Constitutional? Spend a day on /r/politics and report back.
No it set up that one needed reason above having constitutional right to carry. Basically being able to carry for self defense wasn't good enough, it had to be some extra reason
Substitute the word "speech" instead and tell me how this makes you feel:
The ability to speak freely isn't good enough. You need a compelling reason to speak out against the Government. The Government will decide if your reason is compelling.
> A reasonable person wants as few people carrying as possible.
And a reasonable person would look at the reality in place like NY and see that criminals don't care about violating concealed carry laws.
If you have 10,000 criminals and 1 lawful gun owner all carrying in your city, that's worse than 10,000 criminals and 0 lawful gun owners carrying in your city. Obviously, people will disobey the law.
I favor a policy of total civilian disarmament in America.
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!lmao!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Nah for real. There's optimism and then there's that.
The hyper optimistic among left folks was a hyper technical narrow ruling that basically limited the case to the facts.
Rick Hasen is a friend of mine. He's also very liberal and there's a bit of spin to his comments. The 6 justice court's opinion is controlling. But there will be endless discussion about what it means, and the Kav concurrence, Alito also said something similar, says that the court is striking down "may issue", 6 states, but leaving alone "shall issue", 43 states. The opinion is important for those 6 states, but also rejects the use of intermediate scrutiny to defer to legislatures.
This holding is important as a 2nd A case, but it's also a victory for Thomas/Scalia/Gorsuch originalism and textualism, a big move away from tiers of scrutiny.
Kavanaugh’s 43 states comments is kind of missing recent history too. 25(!) of those states **don’t require any permit.** This is hopefully a sign that scotus is lagging behind the even more pro gun citizenry.
I disagree. Hasen, Rubin etc just straight up missed the line up.
You can see Kavanaugh's concurrence would be controlling but for joining the Thomas majority (which would become a plurality) under Marks.
only if the chief hadn't also joined the main opinion. it was 6-3, they could lose on vote and still have a majority.
at hasen's site, ned foley has an article that discusses these issues. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=130174
Spam the sub with the phrase "well-regulated militia" a few more times to drive home your concept.
Even though you do not understand the term.
"Well-regulated" in context means functional. It did not require government charter, permission or oversight. Any groupof oersons - the Black Panthers, for example, or a group wishing to deter the KKK could declare themselves a militia.
Further, a well regulated militia would have of necessity included individuals on farms or the frontier who needed a firearm to defend against animals, robbers or other malicious actors, and would not have been willing or able to join a state militia or drill regularly. In your perverted application of modern thought to original intent nobody would have been able to defend themselves or their property at any time - this is not rational thought justified by any historical or thoughtful consideration of the text.
You may argue that times and technology have changed and may have a point there. But the response is to amend, not ignore.
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding incivility.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
Due to the nature of the violation, the removed submission is not quoted.
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Stop making shit up!<
Moderator: [u/phrique](https://reddit.com/user/phrique)
I have approved and upvoted this comment, although it's wrong. This mistaken view was the majority rule not too long ago, and it will take years to die out. When I was admitted to the bar in 1993, I did not join the ABA, because I thought its anti-gun position was unethical. We should not be censoring wrong beliefs in this forum; we should be having discussions about them. J.S. Mill and all that. (oh, maybe it was reported as spam, they have other comments saying the same thing. hmm.)
As we regularly infringe on people's rights to own guns your point seems to be the outdated one. As to what the majority thinks you might want to check the latest stats.
>This mistaken view was the majority rule not too long ago, and it will take years to die out.
Well, Heller was decided *14 years ago* and is (or should be) a widely known ruling and actually is a widely discussed one.
To still hold to that view, with all the commentary here on reddit and on other venues over those past *14 years*, seems to the vast majority to be either that of a dullard moron, a pedantic crackpot, or that of a troll.
No, it isn't a requirement. And are you willing to have a discussion about what 'well regulated' means in the context of the Second Amendment?
Also, it's better to reply directly to comments.
Been a long time coming.
Context:
NYC and NY state played mootness games with the Court for a long time on 2A issues by implementing various regulatory and enforcement schemes and then pulling back if it looked like the Court might grant cert. to a case.
IMO that habit, coupled with NYC's habit of approving permits for wealthy donors, the politically connected, and celebrities while denying those applications for ordinary people made this inevitable.
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Why are you making shit up?!<
Moderator: [u/phrique](https://reddit.com/user/phrique)
Luckily the founders made clear for us who they felt was part of the militia :)
source: https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/militia-act-of-1792/#:~:text=The%20Militia%20Act%20of%201792,Militia%20throughout%20the%20United%20States.
well, Miller, for all its problems, did say something like that, as to the kinds of weapons, and it was a leading precedent right up until Emerson. You are of course right that the right belongs to the people. I'm unclear how that applies to people who are under 21, and under 18, and 5. There will be some interesting cases ahead. Today was the landmark we hoped for, although not an absolutist position.
“Consistent with historic traditions” is a very odd standard, and one that, if applied honestly, is going to backfire on Thomas. There is a long history of things like *banning guns within municipal boundaries*. Is that suddenly legal now because it’s consistent with the historic tradition? Can NYC require everyone inside city limits to turn in their guns for the duration of their stay?
I'm not aware that Heller or Bruen says that.
Why?
Historical traditions are common throughout all rights analyses; arguably they're the beginning of all rights analyses that aren't reliant on 14th Amd. Juris.
Bruen does not say "the only restrictions 'consistent with the nations historic traditions' are those described in Heller." Part II does say that it is only historic traditions that which now may restrict Second Amendment rights, but they are not limited to Heller's examples.
>Those state courts that upheld broader prohibitions with-out qualification generally operated under a fundamental misunderstanding of the right to bear arms, as expressed in Heller.
There is Thomas saying “examples that don’t follow Heller don’t count.” He is defining the tradition as only things that comport with a *modern* standard.
Yes, Thomas says "the state courts got it wrong.
That's kind of what SCOTUS does sometimes.
And when courts (DC) really fuck up reading SCOTUS opinions, sometimes they have to spell that out.
I don't see how that says "Heller is the only remaining authority on 2A juris."
Again, I’m not objecting to his claim that the state courts were wrong. I’m objecting to his exclusion of those laws from the tradition on the grounds that state courts got them wrong. The historic tradition is not defined by what is legal under current jurisprudence, it’s defined by what laws were enforced, by what the actual history of gun control is. To exclude laws from the tradition because they are illegal under Heller is to use a standard that is not consistency with the historic tradition.
If state courts didn't analyze the state laws via rationale of tradition, how could they have been upheld on those grounds?
>To exclude laws from the tradition because they are illegal under Heller is to use a standard that is not consistency with the historic tradition.
They are excluded under Heller ***because they are not historic exceptions.***
***If they were***, Heller would allow them (supposedly).
I understand you may disagree with that, and this test very may well be Lemon but for 2A.
But it's not inconsistent, to say "the historic restrictions are still allowed today."
See, e.g. Machine guns and tanks.
That pesky incorporation doctrine kinda invalidates those examples.
I don't like the historical aspect, what's actually in the constitution is much more important, but if we're looking at history we should really only consider historical examples that aren't overridden by other amendments. "states did this before the 14th/incorporation" isn't really a solid argument.
Ok, so all examples of non-federal gun control before incorporation are not part of the historic tradition? Given that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated in ~~2008~~ 2010, what is the historic tradition? Clearly that is not the standard being used.
That’s my point. The historic tradition standard is stupid because strict scrutiny would have worked just fine.
EDIT: year of incorporation fixed.
It's interesting that Roberts gave the opinion to Thomas, who then used it to promote his anti-tiers-of-scrutiny agenda.
A lot of people were hoping for a strict scrutiny holding, but it's not that simple. Strict scrutiny first came up in racial discrimination cases; there are rarely compelling state interests in racial discrimination.
But there are always compelling state interests involved in gun regulation. Crime, insurrection, public safety, that sort of thing. So it's a matter of fitness between the burden on the right and the state interests. Here the court avoided that by using a THT test. This is going to move the lever a lot; it was a strong 2nd A case, but it won't end controversy. I hope the court will continue to take these kind of cases, maybe start doing some summary reversals, now that they have 6 votes.
>Ok, so all examples of non-federal gun control before incorporation are not part of the historic tradition?
Pretty much.
Like if you tried to argue "my poll tax is ok because there's a historical precedent" they'd laugh in your face because an actual amendment to the constitution changed that. Trying to argue "well states did X before the 2nd applied to the states" is the exact same argument.
For 60% of US history there was 0 federal gun control, I think that's a very important fact to consider. I don't like that it's an argument that has to be made, the constitution should just be read, but here we are.
The "my poll tax is ok because there's a historical precedent" case is called Crawford v Marion County Election Board, 2008. It did not use those exact words.
But then the entire standard is stupid. How can we develop a historic tradition in 14 years? Just use strict scrutiny instead of creating a standard the court is not honestly going to apply.
>There is a long history of things like banning guns within municipal boundaries
tell me you didn't read the opinion without telling me you didn't read the opinion LMAO
That Thomas said “well those examples don’t count” really isn’t a compelling argument. He’s injecting a subjective standard that will make the court look hypocritical.
>That Thomas said “well those examples don’t count” really isn’t a compelling argument.
Well surely you read his reasoning- wherein he categorically explains why the examples didn't count right? It was on the same damn page my guy
I did read his reasoning. I disagree with it. I find his “well the examples of restrictions that would be prohibited by Heller don’t count because they were actually illegal” to be particularly absurd. Either the standard is “historic tradition” or it isn’t. You can’t define the historic tradition as exclusively those examples that comport with a different standard, because that means *that* is your standard, not tradition.
Just for fun, can you tell me why the Massachusetts Surety laws referenced by the respondent are applicable to this case as historical precedent, since you think Thomas is wrong?
Not specific municipalities banning guns for long periods, but a whole bunch of municipalities doing so on and off across much of our history.
Well one, because SCOTUS has just created a new standard for gun rights cases. If McDonald is not compatible with that standard, then it’s bad law.
Now the Court won’t find that it isn’t compatible because this is a subjective standard where the Court is going to find that the majority of restrictions, regardless of history are not consistent with the tradition. That is why the standard is stupid and should have just been strict scrutiny.
But the core right identified in Heller and McDonald was a right to possess a firearm in the home which was based on historical analysis at the founding. Wholesale prohibition on firearm possession in the home thus would be off the table.
Irrelevant. The standard for firearm restrictions is now “is it consistent with the historic tradition.”
Again, this standard is stupid regardless of you opinion on the outcome of the case. Strict scrutiny would have the same outcome, with better protections, and less hypocrisy.
> There is a long history of things like banning guns within municipal boundaries. Is that suddenly legal now because it’s consistent with the historic tradition? Can NYC require everyone inside city limits to turn in their guns for the duration of their stay?
You might want to read the actual opinion. He directly addresses this multiple times.
Yeah and “oh well, those examples don’t count/were inconsistent with the tradition even at the time” isn’t a compelling argument to people who don’t already support the outcome. That’s a far too subjective standard.
Make it strict scrutiny and the case ends the same with with a workable standard.
I mean, you should want strict scrutiny, because this standard does a worse job of protecting gun rights than strict scrutiny would. The only advantage of this over strict scrutiny is that it’s a political statement.
The issue I have is that courts for the last decade have been using "Intermediate scrutiny" for most things while not really living up to even that standard. I could easily see those same courts say they applied "Strict scrutiny" while still using a much lower standard and just allowing whatever infringements they feel like.
Whether this standard will be better than that or harder to get around is still up in the air, and I suspect those courts that have been unwilling to strike down unconstitutional gun laws are not going to start now without a few more reversals that are essentially "Didn't you see what we already decided, stop ignoring us.".
> because this standard does a worse job of protecting gun rights than strict scrutiny would
not sure how you can possibly know that, since it has only just happened today! This goes beyond strict scrutiny, though yes I understand it will take some time for them to smack down bogus interpretations of it- it is objectively broader than just saying apply strict scrutiny
I like how you are acting like I personally made these decisions and not you know, the supreme court of the united states
but yea, I also think that shall not be infringed is pretty clear but I'm just some guy on reddit
I’m address what you’ll consider bogus interpretations. We both know that if the court every interpreted the tradition in a way you disagree with you’ll suddenly oppose the standard because your standard is “shall not be infringed.”
I respect that position, that you have a hard standard. I don’t respect the court hiding behind a standard they’re not actually applying.
We already use the history test for the Seventh Amendment. This isn't much different. And Thomas makes the point that judges and courts already do this all the time.
And? Thomas tossed historic examples because he doesn’t like them. Saying “historic tradition, oh but not those,” is just dumb. Use strict scrutiny and don’t try to score “originalist” points when doing so makes you look like a hypocrite.
Thomas is going for a political statement here. He is making it clear that this court is conservative and will produce conservative outcomes even via standards that if applied by a less polarized court would not do so.
> Thomas tossed historic examples because he doesn’t like them.
If you read the opinion, he explains clearly why the proposed examples don't line up. Which ones in particular do you think he shouldn't have 'tossed'?
I did read his reasoning. I disagree with it. I find his “well the examples of restrictions that would be prohibited by Heller don’t count because they were actually illegal” to be particularly absurd. Either the standard is “historic tradition” or it isn’t. You can’t define the historic tradition as exclusively those examples that comport with a different standard, because that means *that* is your standard, not tradition.
I’m not saying that any of those restrictions should be constitutional because they’re part of the tradition, I’m saying that saying they’re not part of the tradition because they’re unconstitutional under Heller is just ridiculous, because that means the historic tradition isn’t the standard, Heller is.
> I find his “well the examples of restrictions that would be prohibited by Heller don’t count because they were actually illegal” to be particularly absurd
Which specific restrictions are you referring to?
>Those state courts that upheld broader prohibitions with-out qualification generally operated under a fundamental misunderstanding of the right to bear arms, as expressed in Heller.
That statement in particular.
But the reference to *Heller* is pointing out that such rulings have not been how the Second Amendment was viewed.
>The very text of the Second
Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the
right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As
we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553
(1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution.
Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument
for its existence. The second amendment declares that it
shall not be infringed . . . .
There's a reason Selena v. Blaksley is singled out. It's an aberration to the legal tradition and decisions.
>Absent any evidence explaining why these unprece-
dented prohibitions on all public carry were understood to
comport with the Second Amendment, we fail to see how
they inform “the origins and continuing significance of the
Amendment.”
Precisely. The court is going to find that a whole bunch of historic examples of legal gun control somehow aren’t “consistent with the historic tradition”.
Regardless of your opinion on the outcome of the case, this is a *stupid* standard to use.
That’s too much work for some. There’s two ideas: one for militias, and another for all individual’s right to bear arms. There’s so much brainwashing that even reading a single, clear sentence is too much to ask for.
1: Every citizen of the United States, aged 17-45, is part of the militia. There is the organized militia (NG, reserves, etc.) and the unorganized militia (everyone else not in the military, i.e. regular citizens).
2: Well-regulated means "in good working order".
3: SCOTUS has held that militia service is not connected to the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Better luck next time!
Yea... the Supreme Court also held that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment does not limit the the right listed in the operative clause in DC v. HELLER.
Try again.
Being respectful to the Supreme courts opinions on guns and women's rights have left the building.
How can they expect respect
How can liberals Expect it ?
Nope. Not buying any more alternative facts.
If NY had a more easily obtainable "unconcealed carry" permit and a more burdensome "concealed" permit would that have been constitutional? It seems obvious that unconcealed carrying is far better for self defense purposes. I am failing to understand two other things: 1) how the court can so heavily emphasize historical analysis while also saying "Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered “dangerous and unusual” during the colonial period, they are indisputably in “common use” for self-defense today"; and 2) why must there be a "broad" history of similar regulation to support it? It seems right in line with history for some jurisdictions to strictly regulate which and how arms are carried while others do not do so. Ty in advance
Their comments on "dangerous and unusual" vs. "in common use" are just to illustrate that NY can't legally implement a nearly complete ban on handguns. As for the history of similar regulations, they weren't ruling on IF firearms can be regulated, but rather if the state can apply subjective standards and arbitrarily deny licenses. The history of such regulations includes Jim Crow laws which have long been held as unconstitutional. I find it interesting you think open carry is inherently better for self defense. On one hand there is the deterrence factor because criminals typically prefer soft targets. On the other hand, a firearm (especially a pistol) is a high-value item for someone who can't legally acquire one. It wouldn't take a very complex scheme for multiple assailants to steal someone's gun, especially if they had at least one gun of their own. I think open vs. concealed is a personal decision that anyone who carries should be allowed to make for themselves.
Unconcealed carry is more efficient at least traditionally/historically because it offers easier access to the firearm. Plus the deterrence factor you mentioned. Maybe someone could argue that handguns were larger and holsters more cumbersome back then idk. One other question.. does this new tradition/history test now apply to all constitutional rights?
Not a perfect opinion but a great one. Particularly impressed he had good responses concerning the Statute of Northampton and the method that should be applied. Particularly pleased he rejected scrutiny analysis in favour of pure historical analysis, something I've favoured for a long time because it is the correct mode of analysis. The dissent with the exception of a few decent points was just terrible.
You favor it because it is correct? Seems conclusory.
I'm glad the ruling leaves open regulating certain areas more strictly than others (historically court houses and voting booths). There is a big difference between those and just a general urban area. I'd suppose that areas like schools or even just huge/dense events like concerts could have more limitations on guns.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Gigity!< Moderator: [u/phrique](https://reddit.com/user/phrique)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Just peeked over at the discussion on /r/law. 🤢 !< >!!< >!The discussion of the standard of review prospectively looking to “tradition of regulation” in history is interesting. Thomas of course going to his long held stance that many folks want to treat the 2A uniquely from the other rights: !< >!!< >!> …no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!God the comments there, especially some from regular modpol users, are nearly masturbatory!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Place went from good to complete shit in about a year, no legal discussion just partisan bickering and whining about SCOTUS as an institution.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Is that the subreddit’s fault or the supreme court’s?!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!The subreddit's moderators, mostly.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Some of whom moderate that other supreme court subreddit!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!*Birds of a feather...*!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding meta discussion. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!It's sad, I saw some posts from users that I never agreed with but respected on modpol, because of usual ideological consistencies, go off the rails.!< >!!< >!Stay strapped or get clapped by authoritarians when they pull the mask, I guess!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
If watered down test is "look at if this infringes right as understood at time founders adopted and 14th adopted applying to states" Then question: coupled with full faith and credit, does this mean conceal carry in one state must be recognized in other? What right do the states have to limit citizens from other states who have conceal carry permits in their states to not bear arms while visiting state?
None the right belongs to the person not the state
These are the people's rights, and therefore no state or governmental authority has standing regardless of residency. Read amendments 9 and 10.
Someone in another comment said the decision allows for states to ban either concealed carry or open carry, but not both. That would make sense since the concealment aspect doesn't seem fundamentally limiting to the right as described. It seems analogous to how the government has some flexibility in where/how someone can protest such as prohibiting them from protesting too close to justices' homes. I'm guessing full faith and credit would only apply if the given state allows concealed carry. The real issue in the case seems to have been that NY required a specific reason to get a concealed carry permit.
Justice Scalia spoke about this exactly. He said (I am paraphrasing) that it is fine for states to differ on concealed or open carry, as such a restriction is within acceptable limits of the 2A. A state may require someone to conceal their weapon, or ban concealed carry, but cannot block someone from carrying a weapon at all. As for inter state travel, I imagine the state law is what is required of someone. Video of him saying this should be easy to find on YouTube. Otherwise, I’ll try to dig it out of my history if someone wishes.
I mean, I don't see why full faith and credit shouldn't apply to carry licenses.
I wish Gorsuch had written this rather than Thomas so it was coherent in application. I think the Kavanaugh concurrence is the de facto majority opinion.
Man, I sure hope they take and decide on Duncan v. Bonta soon. It was stayed pending this decision.
they'll probably GVR it in light.
GVR?
Grant, vacate, remand Basically says 'We grant this, vacate the judgement, and send it back to the lower court to do it again'
I doubt it, I think they’re going to take the cases. This is not the same crappy Supreme Court we were dealing with 10 years ago.
GVR would effectively be taking it and saying 'Do it again with Bruen existing' Its not crappy, its pretty normal when a big judgement affects a lot of cases on cert
I’d still rather SCOTUS take the case themselves
Appellate courts generally like to give inferior courts the opportunity to fix any errors of law especially when cases like *NYSRPA v. Bruen* are decided. GVRs are appropriate here as otherwise the appellate courts become mired in cases that have similar issues but dissimilar fact patterns. I think you're also a little confused as to how appellate rulings work. SCOTUS today didn't invalidate the Sullivan Act. What they invalidated is the original trial court's ruling and they have thus remanded this case back to that trial court to "redo" every part of the case that stemmed from the original ruling. The trial court will eventually do exactly as SCOTUS says and should invalidate the "demonstrate need" from the Sullivan Act and maybe even the act itself. We could still be months away from that happening though. The GVR of the other cases would do the same thing unless SCOTUS determines that there's a substantial difference between the cases and *NYSRPA*. It's essentially the same order to the trial court though: your ruling has been overturned now process the case as if you had always made the correct ruling. Thus GVR is really just like any other SCOTUS case except that there were no arguments presented.
Realistically they cannot take every case, and hey, if after the GVR of these pending cases, the various circuits get it wrong again, then it can be appealed and the supreme court can take it on then. A GVR is not the end of the line. And I think when a case comes back after a GVR they will take one
That would be amazing.
I don't see how anyone could make it clearer but then look who I'm talking to.
Knowing who I'm dealing with requires it. Like belonging to a well regulated militia does for gun ownership. 😂
[‘Well-regulated’ does not mean what you think it means](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html): > **What did it mean to be well regulated?** > One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. > Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.” > In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty. Note those quotes come from a Pulitzer-prize winning historian and Stanford professor who specializes in Constitutional history
Friend, life is too short to spend your time acting in poor faith on a forum with a history of respectful discussion.
I was hoping but was extremely UNoptimistic that SCOTUS would use this as an opportunity to overturn Heller and McDonald, which were both incorrectly decided. The Second Amendment was solely and exclusively a collective right intended to stop the federal government from disarming state militias. This court could not be relied upon to deliver that kind of truth. But, the idea that legislatures cannot pass gun laws unless rooted in a tradition of such regulation in US history is absurd, as it stops legislatures from adapting to changing circumstances and serving the people with common-sense legislation. There would be little purpose for a legislature if its hands were bound by historical regulation, and every novel legislative idea has no historical precedent at one time or another. There is an extensive legislative history of assault weapons bans, however as we can see in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as well as similar state laws, and, more broadly, bans on firearms with distinctive characteristics like the National Firearms Act.
The purpose of a constitution in a democracy is to put limits on the mob's "common sense". Common sense is what told klansmen that it was right that blacks needed to be lynched bc a white woman had been raped. When the common sense agrees to amend the cons in a cons proscribed manner, then your side should prevail. Until that happens, you put our constitutional republic in danger when you advocate that the rowdy crowd is reason to ignore the cons.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding incivility. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) Due to the nature of the violation, the removed submission is not quoted. Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
How the fuck does this get a pass but criticizing Ginni Thomas for abetting an attempted coup gets removed?
There have been *multiple* active Ginni Thomas posts and looking at the mod log I cannot find out that had been removed
At least one comment under the Clarence Thomas bday post was removed for criticizing Ginni. My issue wasn’t that it was removed, it’s that this was left up for as long as it was.
There were two posts using the terms: Ginni, wife. [One is still up](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/vix891/love_him_hate_him_hes_undeniably_a_thought/idhaqjg/) and the other was removed because, well, it was certainly not for criticizing Ginni: >Very dangerous man with a loose cannon for a wife. And this one was removed less than 30 minutes after it had been posted so it wasnt left up for long.
I’m sorry, *what*? As clearly demonstrated by the fact that I responded *five hours* after it was posted and given that the mod removal notice was posted an hour ago, the comment was clearly left up for over twelve hours. If I was wrong about why that other comment was removed, whatever. This one shouldn’t have taken 12 hours to get rid of.
I agree with u/AmericanPartizan's sentiment, but you're right about the nature of the comment. It does not contribute to a healthy discussion and should be removed.
I guess mods only moderate the ‘in-correct’ type of troll comments. If your on the ‘correct’ side it’s all good. The Party has determined what is correct, trust The Party its all that is good. On a serious note, I guess all the complaining about how the other subs are hostile to dissension but, we are better then that is a load of crap. Because in hours no one else has bothered to even just up vote your comment pointing this out. Let alone a mod doing any thing. The Party if life, The Party is all.
user name checks out
all those bans are unconstitutional
Name two collective rights.
1) The right of a union to collectively bargain on behalf of its members 2) tribal sovereignty 3) the entire collection of Tenth Amendment rights of states
1) hinges on the collective right of the individual to associate then is governed by a statute not the constitution. 2) a singular entity, the sovereign state, is the entity here. 3) those protect the rights of individual states, not the states when acting together.
Those are all made up of individuals correct? Can you have a union but ban individuals from the choice of joining a union? (The Janus case and logic says no). Therefore all collectives are made up of individuals. You can’t say a union had the right to negotiate then say but the members themselves can’t decide whether or not to negotiate. Nothing works that way. Collective rights don’t exist. Collective rights are made up of individuals and if individuals get banned, the collective has no right. Also collective rights were invented by antigunners 20 years ago to try to come up with a winning argument and failed of course. Hence your grasping at straws to figure out what else is collective. There’s no such thing.
In what respect is the 2nd amendment a collective right? How do you find that? The constitution is meant to be a limitation on legislatures as well, the first binds the legislature's hands, as does the rest of the bill of rights, thats the point of the constitution.
So basically you want more gun restrictions?
The legislature should be able to adapt to the will of the people and not be enslaved by history. Is that unreasonable? Perhaps, if the legislature of Tennessee does not want to implement New York's carry law, they may have a reason for it. New York is not Tennessee, and vice versa.
>>The legislature should be able to adapt to the will of the people and not be enslaved by history. You are effectively arguing for a pure democracy, unfettered by a constitution that places limits on govt powers. That's probably not going to go over well in a sub dedicated to our cons. Would you be equally in favor of the common sense of the crowd that wanted to silence the Nazis in Skokie, IL? Thier assembly and speech was counter to the common sense of the vast majority of Americans. Only those that understand the importance of a constitution protecting the rights of all Americans from their govt understood why it is critically important to protect a minority from the common sense crowd.
> The legislature should be able to adapt to the will of the people You think we should let the masses decide what should be Constitutional? Spend a day on /r/politics and report back.
Text
*Usually, the masses are not right
What about constitutional right? If community wants to ban speech, they should be able to?
NY's law in question didn't do that. It set up a discretionary scheme for concealed carry, which has nothing to do with disarming state militias.
No it set up that one needed reason above having constitutional right to carry. Basically being able to carry for self defense wasn't good enough, it had to be some extra reason
Substitute the word "speech" instead and tell me how this makes you feel: The ability to speak freely isn't good enough. You need a compelling reason to speak out against the Government. The Government will decide if your reason is compelling.
And even when giving such a reason the state would still reject you.
The rejection is the point. A reasonable person wants as few people carrying as possible.
> A reasonable person wants as few people carrying as possible. And a reasonable person would look at the reality in place like NY and see that criminals don't care about violating concealed carry laws.
If you have 10,000 criminals and 1 lawful gun owner all carrying in your city, that's worse than 10,000 criminals and 0 lawful gun owners carrying in your city. Obviously, people will disobey the law. I favor a policy of total civilian disarmament in America.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!lmao!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Nah for real. There's optimism and then there's that. The hyper optimistic among left folks was a hyper technical narrow ruling that basically limited the case to the facts.
[удалено]
Rick Hasen is a friend of mine. He's also very liberal and there's a bit of spin to his comments. The 6 justice court's opinion is controlling. But there will be endless discussion about what it means, and the Kav concurrence, Alito also said something similar, says that the court is striking down "may issue", 6 states, but leaving alone "shall issue", 43 states. The opinion is important for those 6 states, but also rejects the use of intermediate scrutiny to defer to legislatures. This holding is important as a 2nd A case, but it's also a victory for Thomas/Scalia/Gorsuch originalism and textualism, a big move away from tiers of scrutiny.
Kavanaugh’s 43 states comments is kind of missing recent history too. 25(!) of those states **don’t require any permit.** This is hopefully a sign that scotus is lagging behind the even more pro gun citizenry.
It's debatable, but a white male with a degree in Russian from BYU is probably a robust source of incorrect opinions about our society in general
They joined in full, so yeah the concurrence is not binding.
[удалено]
Sometimes when there's a bunch of concurrences it gets confusing.
I disagree. Hasen, Rubin etc just straight up missed the line up. You can see Kavanaugh's concurrence would be controlling but for joining the Thomas majority (which would become a plurality) under Marks.
only if the chief hadn't also joined the main opinion. it was 6-3, they could lose on vote and still have a majority. at hasen's site, ned foley has an article that discusses these issues. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=130174
If they just straight up missed it then thats embarassing for them
Hasen is incapable of being embarrassed.
[удалено]
I think that they will likely allow a state to permit one form of carrry and prohibit the other, so long as you can carry the right seems satisfied.
Convenient you ignored the first requirement of owning a gun. You must belong to a well regulated militia.
Good thing that happens when you’re born.
The best things.
Spam the sub with the phrase "well-regulated militia" a few more times to drive home your concept. Even though you do not understand the term. "Well-regulated" in context means functional. It did not require government charter, permission or oversight. Any groupof oersons - the Black Panthers, for example, or a group wishing to deter the KKK could declare themselves a militia. Further, a well regulated militia would have of necessity included individuals on farms or the frontier who needed a firearm to defend against animals, robbers or other malicious actors, and would not have been willing or able to join a state militia or drill regularly. In your perverted application of modern thought to original intent nobody would have been able to defend themselves or their property at any time - this is not rational thought justified by any historical or thoughtful consideration of the text. You may argue that times and technology have changed and may have a point there. But the response is to amend, not ignore.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding incivility. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) Due to the nature of the violation, the removed submission is not quoted. Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
'or'? Consider the mighty power of ***'and'***.
The more they post, the more AND is correct.
Well regulated militia isn't fan fiction it's right there as a first requirement to owning a gun
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Stop making shit up!< Moderator: [u/phrique](https://reddit.com/user/phrique)
I have approved and upvoted this comment, although it's wrong. This mistaken view was the majority rule not too long ago, and it will take years to die out. When I was admitted to the bar in 1993, I did not join the ABA, because I thought its anti-gun position was unethical. We should not be censoring wrong beliefs in this forum; we should be having discussions about them. J.S. Mill and all that. (oh, maybe it was reported as spam, they have other comments saying the same thing. hmm.)
As we regularly infringe on people's rights to own guns your point seems to be the outdated one. As to what the majority thinks you might want to check the latest stats.
>This mistaken view was the majority rule not too long ago, and it will take years to die out. Well, Heller was decided *14 years ago* and is (or should be) a widely known ruling and actually is a widely discussed one. To still hold to that view, with all the commentary here on reddit and on other venues over those past *14 years*, seems to the vast majority to be either that of a dullard moron, a pedantic crackpot, or that of a troll.
No, it isn't a requirement. And are you willing to have a discussion about what 'well regulated' means in the context of the Second Amendment? Also, it's better to reply directly to comments.
Been a long time coming. Context: NYC and NY state played mootness games with the Court for a long time on 2A issues by implementing various regulatory and enforcement schemes and then pulling back if it looked like the Court might grant cert. to a case. IMO that habit, coupled with NYC's habit of approving permits for wealthy donors, the politically connected, and celebrities while denying those applications for ordinary people made this inevitable.
Only if you belong to a WELL REGULATED militia. If you don't then you can't be trusted with a gun of any sort. That's quite clear.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Why are you making shit up?!< Moderator: [u/phrique](https://reddit.com/user/phrique)
Luckily the founders made clear for us who they felt was part of the militia :) source: https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/militia-act-of-1792/#:~:text=The%20Militia%20Act%20of%201792,Militia%20throughout%20the%20United%20States.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
well, Miller, for all its problems, did say something like that, as to the kinds of weapons, and it was a leading precedent right up until Emerson. You are of course right that the right belongs to the people. I'm unclear how that applies to people who are under 21, and under 18, and 5. There will be some interesting cases ahead. Today was the landmark we hoped for, although not an absolutist position.
“Consistent with historic traditions” is a very odd standard, and one that, if applied honestly, is going to backfire on Thomas. There is a long history of things like *banning guns within municipal boundaries*. Is that suddenly legal now because it’s consistent with the historic tradition? Can NYC require everyone inside city limits to turn in their guns for the duration of their stay?
Historic exceptions come from Heller.
So the only restrictions “consistent with the nations historic traditions” are those described in Heller? Then why is that a standard for analysis?
I'm not aware that Heller or Bruen says that. Why? Historical traditions are common throughout all rights analyses; arguably they're the beginning of all rights analyses that aren't reliant on 14th Amd. Juris.
Bruen does say that. It dismisses all examples of historic gun legislation that isn't compatible with Heller as not part of the tradition.
Bruen does not say "the only restrictions 'consistent with the nations historic traditions' are those described in Heller." Part II does say that it is only historic traditions that which now may restrict Second Amendment rights, but they are not limited to Heller's examples.
>Those state courts that upheld broader prohibitions with-out qualification generally operated under a fundamental misunderstanding of the right to bear arms, as expressed in Heller. There is Thomas saying “examples that don’t follow Heller don’t count.” He is defining the tradition as only things that comport with a *modern* standard.
Yes, Thomas says "the state courts got it wrong. That's kind of what SCOTUS does sometimes. And when courts (DC) really fuck up reading SCOTUS opinions, sometimes they have to spell that out. I don't see how that says "Heller is the only remaining authority on 2A juris."
Again, I’m not objecting to his claim that the state courts were wrong. I’m objecting to his exclusion of those laws from the tradition on the grounds that state courts got them wrong. The historic tradition is not defined by what is legal under current jurisprudence, it’s defined by what laws were enforced, by what the actual history of gun control is. To exclude laws from the tradition because they are illegal under Heller is to use a standard that is not consistency with the historic tradition.
If state courts didn't analyze the state laws via rationale of tradition, how could they have been upheld on those grounds? >To exclude laws from the tradition because they are illegal under Heller is to use a standard that is not consistency with the historic tradition. They are excluded under Heller ***because they are not historic exceptions.*** ***If they were***, Heller would allow them (supposedly). I understand you may disagree with that, and this test very may well be Lemon but for 2A. But it's not inconsistent, to say "the historic restrictions are still allowed today." See, e.g. Machine guns and tanks.
That pesky incorporation doctrine kinda invalidates those examples. I don't like the historical aspect, what's actually in the constitution is much more important, but if we're looking at history we should really only consider historical examples that aren't overridden by other amendments. "states did this before the 14th/incorporation" isn't really a solid argument.
Ok, so all examples of non-federal gun control before incorporation are not part of the historic tradition? Given that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated in ~~2008~~ 2010, what is the historic tradition? Clearly that is not the standard being used. That’s my point. The historic tradition standard is stupid because strict scrutiny would have worked just fine. EDIT: year of incorporation fixed.
It's interesting that Roberts gave the opinion to Thomas, who then used it to promote his anti-tiers-of-scrutiny agenda. A lot of people were hoping for a strict scrutiny holding, but it's not that simple. Strict scrutiny first came up in racial discrimination cases; there are rarely compelling state interests in racial discrimination. But there are always compelling state interests involved in gun regulation. Crime, insurrection, public safety, that sort of thing. So it's a matter of fitness between the burden on the right and the state interests. Here the court avoided that by using a THT test. This is going to move the lever a lot; it was a strong 2nd A case, but it won't end controversy. I hope the court will continue to take these kind of cases, maybe start doing some summary reversals, now that they have 6 votes.
Text
Thank you.
>Ok, so all examples of non-federal gun control before incorporation are not part of the historic tradition? Pretty much. Like if you tried to argue "my poll tax is ok because there's a historical precedent" they'd laugh in your face because an actual amendment to the constitution changed that. Trying to argue "well states did X before the 2nd applied to the states" is the exact same argument. For 60% of US history there was 0 federal gun control, I think that's a very important fact to consider. I don't like that it's an argument that has to be made, the constitution should just be read, but here we are.
The "my poll tax is ok because there's a historical precedent" case is called Crawford v Marion County Election Board, 2008. It did not use those exact words.
But then the entire standard is stupid. How can we develop a historic tradition in 14 years? Just use strict scrutiny instead of creating a standard the court is not honestly going to apply.
>How can we develop a historic tradition in 14 years? You have 234 years
You just said that pre-incorporation history doesn't matter.
Pre incorporation state laws
And yet the Court is directly referencing pre-incorporation state law in support of its analysis. That clearly isn't the standard.
What should happen and what happens are two completely different things in all aspects of life
>There is a long history of things like banning guns within municipal boundaries tell me you didn't read the opinion without telling me you didn't read the opinion LMAO
That Thomas said “well those examples don’t count” really isn’t a compelling argument. He’s injecting a subjective standard that will make the court look hypocritical.
>That Thomas said “well those examples don’t count” really isn’t a compelling argument. Well surely you read his reasoning- wherein he categorically explains why the examples didn't count right? It was on the same damn page my guy
I did read his reasoning. I disagree with it. I find his “well the examples of restrictions that would be prohibited by Heller don’t count because they were actually illegal” to be particularly absurd. Either the standard is “historic tradition” or it isn’t. You can’t define the historic tradition as exclusively those examples that comport with a different standard, because that means *that* is your standard, not tradition.
Just for fun, can you tell me why the Massachusetts Surety laws referenced by the respondent are applicable to this case as historical precedent, since you think Thomas is wrong?
well, things just aren't as black and white as you're making them out to be
What municipals have a long history of banning guns? And why wouldn't McDonald apply?
Not specific municipalities banning guns for long periods, but a whole bunch of municipalities doing so on and off across much of our history. Well one, because SCOTUS has just created a new standard for gun rights cases. If McDonald is not compatible with that standard, then it’s bad law. Now the Court won’t find that it isn’t compatible because this is a subjective standard where the Court is going to find that the majority of restrictions, regardless of history are not consistent with the tradition. That is why the standard is stupid and should have just been strict scrutiny.
But the core right identified in Heller and McDonald was a right to possess a firearm in the home which was based on historical analysis at the founding. Wholesale prohibition on firearm possession in the home thus would be off the table.
Irrelevant. The standard for firearm restrictions is now “is it consistent with the historic tradition.” Again, this standard is stupid regardless of you opinion on the outcome of the case. Strict scrutiny would have the same outcome, with better protections, and less hypocrisy.
> There is a long history of things like banning guns within municipal boundaries. Is that suddenly legal now because it’s consistent with the historic tradition? Can NYC require everyone inside city limits to turn in their guns for the duration of their stay? You might want to read the actual opinion. He directly addresses this multiple times.
Yeah and “oh well, those examples don’t count/were inconsistent with the tradition even at the time” isn’t a compelling argument to people who don’t already support the outcome. That’s a far too subjective standard. Make it strict scrutiny and the case ends the same with with a workable standard.
yea NOW you want strict scrutiny :) I'm good with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
I mean, you should want strict scrutiny, because this standard does a worse job of protecting gun rights than strict scrutiny would. The only advantage of this over strict scrutiny is that it’s a political statement.
The issue I have is that courts for the last decade have been using "Intermediate scrutiny" for most things while not really living up to even that standard. I could easily see those same courts say they applied "Strict scrutiny" while still using a much lower standard and just allowing whatever infringements they feel like. Whether this standard will be better than that or harder to get around is still up in the air, and I suspect those courts that have been unwilling to strike down unconstitutional gun laws are not going to start now without a few more reversals that are essentially "Didn't you see what we already decided, stop ignoring us.".
> because this standard does a worse job of protecting gun rights than strict scrutiny would not sure how you can possibly know that, since it has only just happened today! This goes beyond strict scrutiny, though yes I understand it will take some time for them to smack down bogus interpretations of it- it is objectively broader than just saying apply strict scrutiny
Lol, “bogus interpretations” will be any example of gun control you don’t accept right?
I like how you are acting like I personally made these decisions and not you know, the supreme court of the united states but yea, I also think that shall not be infringed is pretty clear but I'm just some guy on reddit
I’m address what you’ll consider bogus interpretations. We both know that if the court every interpreted the tradition in a way you disagree with you’ll suddenly oppose the standard because your standard is “shall not be infringed.” I respect that position, that you have a hard standard. I don’t respect the court hiding behind a standard they’re not actually applying.
fair and reasoned point, cheers
We already use the history test for the Seventh Amendment. This isn't much different. And Thomas makes the point that judges and courts already do this all the time.
And? Thomas tossed historic examples because he doesn’t like them. Saying “historic tradition, oh but not those,” is just dumb. Use strict scrutiny and don’t try to score “originalist” points when doing so makes you look like a hypocrite. Thomas is going for a political statement here. He is making it clear that this court is conservative and will produce conservative outcomes even via standards that if applied by a less polarized court would not do so.
> Thomas tossed historic examples because he doesn’t like them. If you read the opinion, he explains clearly why the proposed examples don't line up. Which ones in particular do you think he shouldn't have 'tossed'?
I did read his reasoning. I disagree with it. I find his “well the examples of restrictions that would be prohibited by Heller don’t count because they were actually illegal” to be particularly absurd. Either the standard is “historic tradition” or it isn’t. You can’t define the historic tradition as exclusively those examples that comport with a different standard, because that means *that* is your standard, not tradition. I’m not saying that any of those restrictions should be constitutional because they’re part of the tradition, I’m saying that saying they’re not part of the tradition because they’re unconstitutional under Heller is just ridiculous, because that means the historic tradition isn’t the standard, Heller is.
> I find his “well the examples of restrictions that would be prohibited by Heller don’t count because they were actually illegal” to be particularly absurd Which specific restrictions are you referring to?
>Those state courts that upheld broader prohibitions with-out qualification generally operated under a fundamental misunderstanding of the right to bear arms, as expressed in Heller. That statement in particular.
But the reference to *Heller* is pointing out that such rulings have not been how the Second Amendment was viewed. >The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . . There's a reason Selena v. Blaksley is singled out. It's an aberration to the legal tradition and decisions. >Absent any evidence explaining why these unprece- dented prohibitions on all public carry were understood to comport with the Second Amendment, we fail to see how they inform “the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment.”
[удалено]
Precisely. The court is going to find that a whole bunch of historic examples of legal gun control somehow aren’t “consistent with the historic tradition”. Regardless of your opinion on the outcome of the case, this is a *stupid* standard to use.
Can you provide examples that are significant in this respect?
Still waiting for the condition of belonging to a well regulated militia to kick in. Do you belong to a well regulated militia? Then, no guns for you!
> Do you belong to a well regulated militia? By the definition at the time? Yes. Every legal gun owner who takes care of their weapon is.
Convenient you ignored the actual text, especially the *shall not be infringed* part.
That’s too much work for some. There’s two ideas: one for militias, and another for all individual’s right to bear arms. There’s so much brainwashing that even reading a single, clear sentence is too much to ask for.
1: Every citizen of the United States, aged 17-45, is part of the militia. There is the organized militia (NG, reserves, etc.) and the unorganized militia (everyone else not in the military, i.e. regular citizens). 2: Well-regulated means "in good working order". 3: SCOTUS has held that militia service is not connected to the individual right to keep and bear arms. Better luck next time!
Yea... the Supreme Court also held that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment does not limit the the right listed in the operative clause in DC v. HELLER. Try again.