Posted on 11/05/2022 8:50:09 AM PDT by Carriage Hill
Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty easy. The prefatory clause that Leftists hang their hats on is totally superfluous.
Calls his “bluff”? Really? Remind me again who the dumbass is here.
Such garbage. Obliterating a serial number on a gun will get you into big trouble. The writer knows not of what he speaks.
If Thomas is true to historical precedent, it was legal for a felon to purchase a firearm until 1968. I still think that it is a good idea to prohibit those convicted of non-violent felonies to be prohibited for at least 10 years after their release from prison contingent on good behavior and violent felonies forever. The exception is that anyone can use a firearm for personal defense or the defense of another.
IMHO, so-called Feral “judges” are completely out of control. Time to start defunding them. The justice system in this country is a circus run by clowns. The RATS continue to accuse Americans of trying to destroy their Stalinist “democrazy” while their “judges” continue attacking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Hopefully Thomas is aware that early gun laws in America were intended to keep firearms out of the hands of black people.
The record is not ‘spotty’ on the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. He can refer to “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” a report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, compiled by the US Senate 97th Congress, 2nd Session!
Or he could just read the second amendment where he will find the phrase “shall not be infringed”. 🙄
Laughable BS. Essentially all Justice Thomas ruled was that judges have to obey the ORIGINAL INTENT of the states when they ratified the 2nd amendment.
GASP! OH MY GOD!!!! How horrible!!! Judges don’t get to simply create law by fiat anymore. They have to admit that they are not black robed deities we all must obey and that they answer to a higher authority - ie the constitution ratified by the representatives of THE PEOPLE who are SOVEREIGN.
My God! Who reads Slate other than mentally ill Leftists??
Dangerous letting some leftwing academic come in with fake stats (see this example) to overrule to constitution.
There was no meat in that article.
They pointed to zero facts or allusions of their great schemed thi king that the 2nd ammendment is an error.
Nothing, not even an antidote
What is president if not history?
“His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution.”
They're not biologists either.
Complete waste of time reading the article, which never gives any evidence to support the position Thomas is wrong.
Your excerpt say nothing about what is in the title. And I am not clicking on that site.
You cite the exact instance I was going to post. We followed here the lying disgrace of historian Michael A. Bellesiles as he put out “Arming America” which other leftist historians then awarded the Bancroft Prize for history.
It is in their DNA to take their political leanings and construct their historical studies and analysis out of lies and total fabrications.
Let’s not be mistaken. Every writer has opinions, allegiances, sensible prejudices, and the like that he carries into any project. Most of us can accept those biases as long as the author is transparent and doesn’t outright lie and fabricate we can read past such limitations and human frailties and find some value.
What is not acceptable is the number of leftists in journalism, history and much of academia that believe their leftist opinion is so honored that they are required to use full falsehood and propaganda to make their case trying to build a leftist wall of opinion that cannot be surmounted.
Academics cannot be trusted. Leftists cannot be trusted — even under oath.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.