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 ...
They never had to do research to find legal cases and/or legal precedence to argue a case when they were in college, or write a paper about the history of the legal system, or a position paper on a legal issue, using original source material, or as lawyers in a court room? If not, then they have no business sitting on a court.
The debates in the states over ratification of the Constitution often raised concerns over the lack of a bill of rights, with the right to keep and bear arms sometimes referred to. In at least one instance, a state legislature wanted such a right included, but with an exception as to those convicted of a crime. The lack of any such exception in the Bill or Rights as eventually proposed and adopyed by Congress suggests that the exception did not gind favor.
See also Militia Acts of 1795, 1808, 1862, 1903, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera
“The prefatory clause that Leftists hang their hats on is totally superfluous.”
In grammar, it is called a subordinate introductory clause.
Davy Crockett, in his autobiography, relates how he and his neighbors enlisted in Jackson’s army for a three month period. They were required to bring their own muskets but the army supplied the ammunition.
According to the left’s reading of the 2nd Amendment, it took an amendment to the Constitution to allow arming the military.
The nerve of that guy! Telling judges to look at the Constitution to determine constitutionality!
In FL a felon can keep firearms in their homes, and depending on what they were convinced of and if they stay on the straight and narrow can petition the courts to have their concealed carry rights restored
A real blithering idiot pack of BeijingBiden word salad.
Hey, bozo writing for the Slate, judges don’t have to be experts in anything. It is the parties before the bench responsibility to make their case in their writeup. And, the judge has staff.
This is how close we are to losing this nation when apparently the lower courts and some states are not going by the rule of law that the supreme court is the last word! When judges feel like they need to question or bypass the Supreme Court then I can honestly tell you this country is crooked! Justice dies in the dark!
On April 28, 2010, Reeves was nominated by President Barack Obama to fill a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi vacated by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. Reeves was confirmed by the United States Senate on December 19, 2010 by voice vote.
You're assuming they will follow the law in that regard. They've already proven they can't follow the law, and in most cases, they won't. They'll get a gun any way they can, and with the fact that Democrat D.A.'s, and liberal judges don't put real criminals behind bars, what makes you think they'd even enforce any ownership restrictions for ex-cons? Violent offenders are let right back out on the street after having been arrested for the 25th time. I speak as someone who worked in uniform for 25 years behind the walls of New York State's prison system.
A well regulated Library, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
Cite some of these “early gun laws”.
“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.”
The big problem is not the prefatory clause. The big problem is that “The right to keep and Bear arms” is not defined. Without an agreed to definition the other side can say that whatever they propose to limit is not an infringement because what they propose to limit is not included in the “right to keep and bear arms”.
For instance, they might say the “right to keep and bear arms” does not cover a five-year old walking around with a 1911 Colt pattern pistol in his hand with a round in the chamber, cocked with the safety off.
“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. “
What about “Shall not be infringed”?
That all seems pretty arbitrary. Kind of like the language in the 1968 gun control act, and many court rulings since. Either the second amendment means what it says, or it means nothing.
They should have their rights restored if they are not on parole. Once off parole, their time has been served.
Clayton Cramer’s 1993 work “The Racist Roots of Gun Control” is a recommended read:
https://powersfirearmstraining.com/resources/The%20Racist%20Roots%20of%20Gun%20Control.pdf
1828 Webster’s Dictionary...
INFRING’ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses...
Thanks.
I didn’t ask for a book reference, though.
I’m getting at what you call “early”.
You’re welcome. It’s only nine pages and addresses your followup question.
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.