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 ...
It was actually published as a book. I doubt it was ever posted on-line (published 1982). I heard it mentioned in a long ago debate & ordered a copy for myself. Orrin Hatch was Chair & the other members of the committee were Strom Thurmond, Dennis DeConcini, Charles Grassley & Patrick Leahy. An interesting committee to all come out with a report that backs up the 2nd Amendment’s historical basis for the right to keep & bear arms.
Oct 13 (Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional.
Not a national ruling.
Not any more....the whole serial number schtick has been found unconstitutional. Back in the day, firearms had no serial numbers. Text, history and tradition....
Isn’t that what their law clerks are for?
2A is designed so the people can protect themselves, from other people but also the government, any level of government which would infringe on freedom.
- - -
Agreed that it’s designed that way. The first SCOTUS case heard concerning 2A (also 1A), 1876’s US v Cruikshank, came to a slightly different decision.
I’ve seen it before, and was actually looking for it in the last few days.
So it’s now on my profile page for handy reference.
“The exception is that anyone can use a firearm for personal defense or the defense of another.”
How can they use one for defense if they are not allowed to own one?
The most Constitutional solution is to simply not abridge a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Anyone who has committed a crime serious enough to justify abridging that right should already be in prison, where he has few rights anyway.
If he is deemed sufficiently rehabilitated to trust him to be freed from prison, then he should have his 2nd amendment rights restored as well.
Or the reverse - If he can’t be trusted with firearms, why should he be allowed to walk free? If he can’t be trusted with firearms, why should he be trusted with blunt objects, sharp objects, poison, matches, chainsaws, welding torches, motor vehicles, or near train tracks, bathtubs, rooftops, lakes, swimming pools, oceans, etc.?
They can all be used to commit murder.
Also, the government can refine what constitutes a violent felony.
Limiting citizens’ gun ownership benefits tyrannical governments - period.
yeah, spell check on a small mobile phone screen will get you.
Give it time....it will be. Text, history, and tradition... Text does not address the issue, but the fact of history does. Firearms serial numbers were first required in 1968, not 1791.
Matt Dillon always handed guns back to bad guys when he released them, we should too.
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun they are too dangerous to be on the streets. In the old days a gun was just as necessary as a horse was to a cowboy for survival.
Yeah, after they become Judges, but they should have been clerks themselves at some point, and had the experience of doing research then, and as students in college, and then law school. It's a piss-poor excuse to claim that Judges have no training in real historical analysis, yet they are allowed to make history with their decisions.
Ain’t that the truth
“How can they use one for defense if they are not allowed to own one?”
Someone else in the house legally owns one. As the law no reads, they cannot even possess the firearm temporarily.
It is what it is.
“...heightened lethality...”
Probably “HP” and “+P” rounds... heh.
Him supporting gun rights for all people today, makes me
wonder why that fact would impact his decisions today.
I don’t care if he knows about that or not, presuming it’s
true.
He’s doing the right thing. That works for me.
Never understood how “the People” in the 1A are individual citizens, but “the People” in the 2A are the militia. It takes a special kind of educated “intellectual” to square that circle, and to believe it.
Why?
If they are reformed you have just rendered them either helpless victims or made them into law breakers because they they need to defend themselves.
If they are not reformed they will ignore this rule.
What good does this do?
Sorry to disagree, but you MAY NOT have it both ways; either “shall not be infringed” means unequivocally what it says, and means it for everyone, all the time; or it doesn’t, and all bets are off, and the gates are flung side for nearly any jurisdiction to “infringe” in any way they desire in the name of “gun control.”
You may have the fullness of your rights ONLY if you accept the fullness of the risks and responsibilities pertaining to them.
That is how The Constitution is written.
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.