JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
After New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022), this Court’s directive was clear: A fire-arm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue, 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
If I can be so bold as to paraphrase the good Justice (who wrote THIRTY-TWO pages in his dissent) from this intro, I think he's saying this: "the Court is being hypocritical to one of its own prior decisions."
In the Rahimi case,
Discussing the application by the lower courts of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts writes that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” Otherwise, he explains, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to “muskets and sabers.”
Lots here elaborating on how lower courts should apply the methodology going forward. “Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions of similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.”
Applying that methodology to this case, Roberts looks at early English and early American gun laws and concludes that they “confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.”
Although the federal law at issue here is not identical to those laws, Roberts concedes, they do “not need to be.”
Roberts rejects Rahimi’s argument that Heller established a blanket right to have a handgun in your home, which this law would violate.
That’s from Roberts. I believe Thomas has the right of it in his dissent. Read his dissent if you have time. It is an excellent treatise on our Second Amendment rights.
"Discussing the application by the lower courts of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts writes that "some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." Otherwise, he explains, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to "muskets and sabers."
Lots here elaborating on how lower courts should apply the methodology going forward. "Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions of similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations."
Applying that methodology to this case, Roberts looks at early English and early American gun laws and concludes that they "confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."
Although the federal law at issue here is not identical to those laws, Roberts concedes, they do "not need to be."
Roberts rejects Rahimi's argument that Heller established a blanket right to have a handgun in your home, which this law would violate.
Bit by bit the entire wall will be worn away by well meaning courts.
It is sad how ACB can base one ruling on Historical context and then completely ignore it on another. The USSC has no credibility IMO.
“who wrote THIRTY-TWO pages in his dissent”
wow.
It’s not often that Alito and Thomas disagree. Obviously Thomas feel strongly about this one. I pray he has continued good health.