« So much for expert witnesses in 2A AW cases.... | Main | Army's next generation rifle program... »
11th Circuit upholds restrictions on 18-21 yr olds
Opinion here. I might not agree with the result, but it is well-written and performs the historical inquiry required by Bruen. The method does highlight a core question: is it the initial popular understanding of 1791 or of 1868 that matters?
The reasoning is implicitly: the fact that a (state) restriction existed or was widespread at the relevant time establishes that it was seen as an exception to the right to arms. One limit on this reasoning is that the Supreme Court early on ruled that the federal bill of rights did not bind the states. Not long after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court eviscerated it. So state legislatures would have been adopting restrictions, not against the background of the Second Amendment, but against the background of their state bill of rights, and some contained no right to arms, or limited it to "for the common defense."
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Not an En Banc Ruling? Only a 3-Judge Ruling? It Seems Most of the Active Judges Were Appointed by Bush & Clinton It Seems.
Not a single state law passed from 1833 to today can legitimately be used to evaluate the 2nd. It makes no difference what was done historically during this time period. Any judge who uses state laws from 1833 to present is a liar, conducting himerself in bad behavior by ignoring facts and should be removed from office, permanently barred from the legal practice.
Why SO FW?
As Dave alluded, in 1833(Barron v Baltimore) the SC said none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states. If the 2nd does not apply to a state, then any law passed by that state has no bearing on the 2nd. Simple logic. If an amendment does not apply to a government entity, then laws passed by the government entity have no relationship to that amendment or to any later evaluations of other laws with respect to that amendment.
Now the SC was wrong. One point is that only what became the 1st was singled out to apply solely to the federal government. The supremacy clause causes the others to be applicable. Madison desire to shove the amendments into locations in the original Constitution have no bearing. There was no Kinko's so ratifying delegations in states may or may not have known of Madison's predilections and the fact that regardless of what Madison said, the amendments were ratified and added to the end with a preamble that said articles in addition to and amendments OF the Constitution, placing those amendments in in the control of the supremacy clause of Article VI Pp 2.
That is what the various Circuits are for. Punish the eventual winner with huge legal bills while the local Persecuror holds the victims in jail. There is no longer a right to a speedy trial to resolve issues, just expensive delay.