#district of columbia v Heller

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul on Thursday filed a brief defending Illinois’ assault weapon ban, arguing the weapons restricted by the newly enacted law aren’t commonly used for self-defense and that large capacity magazines are accessories — not “arms.”

It also argues the country’s founding fathers owned guns that could only fire a single shot before reloading — proving assault weapons and large capacity magazines weren’t in “common use” when the Constitution was ratified.

“The assault weapons restricted by the Act are not commonly used for self-defense; by design and in practice, they exist for offensive infliction of mass casualties,” the brief states.

It also argues the term “arms” refers to weapons and not “accessories,” and that large capacity magazines are therefore not protected under the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

Those are among the key arguments in a 72-page brief filed by Raoul, Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly in the Southern District of Illinois — in response to challenges to the ban in four federal lawsuits that were consolidated on Feb. 24.

Pritzker on Jan. 10 signed legislation that bans the sale of assault weapons and caps the purchase of magazines at 10 rounds for long guns and 15 for handguns. It also makes rapid-fire devices known as switches illegal because they turn firearms into fully automatic weapons.

Two key U.S. Supreme Court decisions are shaping the legal arguments around such bans. Thursday’s brief references them both, known as the Bruen and Heller decisions.

In the 2022 Bruen case, the high court’s 6-3 ruling required judges to rely on the Second Amendment’s text and the history of gun regulation to decide the constitutionality of gun laws — and not on the strength of the public safety purpose of those laws.

And in the 2002 Heller decision, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to “possess and carry arms in case of a confrontation.” That ruling struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C.

The brief filed Thursday states that Heller acknowledged handguns are “the quintessential self-defense weapon” and called M-16 rifles “weapons that are most useful in military service.”

“The Act regulates weapons and accessories like those categorically marked as unprotected in Heller,” the brief argues in its defense of the Illinois ban. “That is why it does not infringe the Second Amendment.”

In the Bruen ruling, whose opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, restrictions on weapons must be limited to dangerous and unusual arms that aren’t commonly used. Opponents, including the National Association for Gun Rights, have argued the weapons banned by the Illinois law are “unquestionably” in common use.

The state’s response argues otherwise.

“The Second Amendment’s text protects only arms in common use at the time the Second or Fourteenth Amendments were ratified, or those commonly used for individual self-defense today,” the brief says. “Plaintiffs cannot show the Act violates the Second Amendment because it regulates weapons designed for war, not self-defense.”

The federal suits, now consolidated, were filed by Illinois residents who own assault weapons and large capacity magazines, businesses that want to continue selling those items and gun rights and advocacy organizations. They are seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the act, specifically limitations on the purchase and sale of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

A number of state lawsuits have also challenged the ban, with most claiming it violates the Illinois Constitution. Some of the suits have resulted in temporary restraining orders — but only blocking enforcement of the ban against the gun owners and other plaintiffs who filed the suits.

Thursday’s brief notes that the only Court that has considered whether the ban infringes on the Second Amendment has already ruled that it does not. U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall on Feb. 17 ruled that the Illinois and Naperville bans on selling assault weapons are “constitutionally sound.”

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/the-shadow-knows/

The Shadow Knows

During the winter holidays, Britain’s Prime Mister, Rishi Sunak took a photo-op when he decided to serve breakfast at a homeless shelter. Sunak, reported to be worth  $800 million, made a stab at being chummy as he handed a plate of eggs and sausages to a stranger standing on the opposite side of the steam counter.  “Do you work in business, by any chance?” As the man reached for the plate that hung in midair, he stated the obvious.  “No.  I’m homeless.  I’m here for a hot meal.” Finding common ground with a stranger can be difficult.  Sometimes, it never happens.  Sometimes connection takes a second. Since arriving in Congress (2021), House Republican Marjorie Taylor Green has engaged her Democratic associate Jaime Raskin in Twitter combat.  No one could have guessed they were linked by a  thread.  Yet when Raskin announced he had cancer, Greene did an about-face. Her father had died of cancer. She knew the struggle that awaited her colleague.  “I’ll be praying for Jaime Raskin,” she tweeted. Empathy is a grace that exists in most humans.  It lifts us into spiritual realms but is ephemeral. Called upon too often or for too long a time, the flame dies out. Prolonged empathy morphs into grief; grief becomes despair; despair, falling alike upon those who suffer and those who help,  leaves the spirit numb.  insanity is the final transition. The Ukraine war is an example.  The nation may be winning its battles, but its rubbled streets look nothing like a victory. How long will the people’s courage last and that of their supporters?  Longer than the invaders’, I hope.  Seeing his country mired in blood,  one Russian propagandist’s despair touches upon insanity. Embrace death he exhorted his countrymen. “Life is highly overrated.”    History is rife with nihilists like him.  It is a state of mind as old as Biblical Masada and jihadism.  In times of greatest stress, it can pass for Reason.   Recently, the U. S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s gun control laws which were intended a cripple the growing number of mass shootings. The judges concluded that under the Second Amendment, the legislation violated the people’s right to protect themselves. That decision was based on its 2008 verdict in the District of Columbia v. Heller. There, the judges determined that “militia” in the Second Amendment covered an individual’s right to self-defense.  Though reasonable on its face, the interpretation leaves citizens standing in crosshairs. One commentator rightly asked, “What happens when the people are no longer allowed to protect themselves from mass slaughter through their elected representatives and are left at the mercy of unelected judges who do not care if they are shot to death.” The marshmallow experiment reminds us that our human tendency is to secure what we have rather than plan for future unknowns. The impulse can goad us into precipitous action.      In the 1990s, the United States may have acted impulsively when President Bill Clinton encouraged Urkaine’s desire for ties with Europe.  Political scientist John Mearsheimer says Clinton’s decision destroyed a détente between Russia and the west and paved the way for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of its neighbor. Clinton disagrees. Graham Fuller, a political analyst, sides with Mearsheimer on the question and sees Ukraine’s struggles as a proxy war between the U. S. and Russia.  He says we are making a similar mistake with China he continues. Our efforts to restrict that country’s growth have backfired, leading  China to respond with its Belt and Road initiative —an economic development plan for third-world countries that China underwrites. The program has enjoyed success, particularly among nations in the southern hemisphere that have experienced the west’s military presence: Latin American, the Middle East, Africa, India, and parts of Asia.   Finger-pointing, of course, is among the oldest ploys.  At this moment, however, it poses danger because it diverts our attention from Damocles’s sword as it swings above our heads.  I refer to climate change. In a recent version of nihilism, some scientists have abandoned the hope that we can escape annihilation. Those of us who dare to contemplate the future know that Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jamie Raskin have revealed the common ground that unites the species. Who becomes Speaker of the U. S. House in 2023 is irrelevant. At a visceral level, we know our charge. Either we work toward the common good.  Or, we nurture our grudges and fall victim to the lengthening shadow of our annihilation.

[collapsedsquid]

“Teaching constitutional law today is an enterprise in teaching students what law isn’t,” Leah Litman, a professor at the University of Michigan law school, told me. Rebecca Brown, at the University of Southern California, has been teaching constitutional law for 35 years. “While I was working on my syllabus for this course, I literally burst into tears,” she told me. “I couldn’t figure out how any of this makes sense. Why do we respect it? Why do we do any of it? I’m feeling very depleted by having to teach it.” At least she’s still trying. Larry Kramer, a widely-respected legal scholar and historian who was my constitutional law professor at N.Y.U. 20 years ago, called it quits in 2008, on the heels of the Supreme Court’s divisive decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down decades of precedent to declare for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Many observers felt that Heller’s majority opinion, by Justice Antonin Scalia, intentionally warped history to reach a preordained result. Professor Kramer was the dean of Stanford law school at the time, but after the Heller ruling, he told me recently, “I couldn’t stand up in front of the class and pretend the students should take the court seriously in terms of legal analysis.” First-year law students, he felt, “should be taught by someone who still believed in what the court did.”

Regime indoctrinators losing faith in obviously phony ruling ideology

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Clay Jones

* * * * *

A hollow victory in the Supreme Court

June 22, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that a domestic abuser with a demonstrated history of gun violence could have his right to possess a firearm suspended pending a hearing on a restraining order. See US v. Rahimi. The result was the only rational outcome in a case with horrific facts. As described by Mark Joseph Stern in Slate,

Zackey Rahimi, who beat his girlfriend, then fired shots at either her or a witness as she fled his abuse. His girlfriend subsequently obtained a restraining order from a state court that found that he posed “a credible threat” to her “physical safety.” Rahimi, however, continued harassing her, threatened a different woman with a firearm, and was identified as the suspect in at least five additional shootings. When the police searched his apartment, they found a pistol, a rifle, ammunition, and a copy of the restraining order.

Although we should celebrate the outcome, the fact that that case made it to the Supreme Court is emblematic of the extremism that the Court’s prior Second Amendment decisions have unleashed. Worse, in attempting to walk back from the precipice of the absurd absolutist position adopted by the Court in an earlier case (Bruen), the justices needed seven different opinions to explain how their ruling in Bruen applied to the facts in Rahimi.

In short, the opinion in Rahimi is a hot mess that leaves lower courts with no meaningful guidance on how to apply the nonsensical rule of Bruen to the real world of a society under siege by gun violence. There is an old saying in law that “Hard cases make bad law.” That saying is true of today’s ruling in Rahimi, as explained below.

It is important to reflect on how we arrived at this moment—one in which rational people heaved a sigh of relief that the Court did not adopt an insane result. The fact that we are grateful for the crumbs that fall from the table of the reactionary majority is a sign of the urgent need to reform the Court.

Background on Supreme Court Second Amendment cases

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Between 1791 and 2008, the Supreme Court interpreted the language of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to bear arms, as was made plain by the language of the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But in 2008, the Supreme Court overthrew two centuries of jurisprudence to rule in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the right to bear arms belongs to individuals seeking self-defense in their homes. In 2010, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Second Amendment apply to states and municipalities. Finally, in 2022, in NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Court ruled that the “ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

See how fast that happened? For two centuries, the right to bear arms was a collective right grounded in state militias. In the 14 years from 2008 to 2022, the right quickly morphed from a right to self-defense in homes to the right pack a pistol in public. And last week, the Supreme Court ruled that right extended to private ownership of machine guns.

The problem with Justice Thomas’ majority opinion in Bruen (2022)

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion in Bruen upholding the right to carry a pistol in public. He adopted an “originalist” approach, holding that laws regulating guns were presumptively unconstitutional and that regulations could pass muster only if they were “consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Because most modern firearms were not in existence when the Second Amendment was ratified, virtually all restrictions on gun possession would be ruled unconstitutional under the originalist test in Bruen.

In short, Bruen was an absolutist nightmare that would lead to absurd results. District and appellate courts were quickly mired in rulings leading to nonsensical results—such as the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that Rahimi could not be deprived of his guns despite his demonstrated history of actual and threatened use of firearms against domestic partners.

The ruling in Rahimi (2024)

In Rahimi, issued on Friday, the majority ruled (8 to 1) that temporarily suspending a respondent's gun ownership in a domestic violence proceeding was constitutional, notwithstanding the holding in Bruen. Justice Thomas dissented, writing (correctly) that applying the holding in Bruen to the facts of the case in Rahimi should have resulted in a ruling declaring the temporary suspension unconstitutional.

But the majority in Rahimi understood that the facts in that case were horrific and that it would be ludicrous to apply their earlier ruling in Bruen as written. In a just universe, the majority should have declared Justice Thomas’ opinion in Bruen a mistake and adopted a new rule. Sadly, the majority did not overrule Bruen. Instead, it came up with an exception to Bruen, which was crafted by Chief Justice Roberts.  

The exception created by Roberts is as nonsensical as Justice Thomas’s original rule. Or, as Ian Millhiser writes in Vox, Justice Roberts’ opinion is “incoherent gobbledygook.” See Vox, The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi.

Justice Roberts narrowed Bruen by writing that some gun regulations would be constitutional if they were based on “analogous regulations that existed when the Constitution was framed.” Okay, so far. What “analogous regulations” existed in 1791 that were similar to depriving a domestic abuser of his firearms? Answer: There were no such regulations. (A point made by Justice Thomas.)

Instead, Justice Roberts pointed to “surety laws” that required some people to post a bond if it could be shown they might engage in dangerous activity. But posting money is nothing like being deprived of a firearm (a point made by Justice Thomas). Nonetheless, Justice Roberts ruled that posting a surety bond was “relevantly similar” to depriving someone of gun ownership. Uh, okay. If you say so, Justice Roberts.

Don’t get me wrong. I am happy with the outcome. But Justice Roberts’ test of finding “relevantly similar analogous regulations” is pure mush—especially if posting a money bond is “analogous” to being deprived of gun ownership. The test provides no guidance and casts lower courts adrift on a sea of challenges to local gun regulations.

But it gets worse. Justice Roberts left the door open for future challenges from plaintiffs like Rahami. Why? Because Rahami claimed that the statute in question was invalid on its face as applied to everyone. This distinction is explained by Ian Millhiser in his Vox article, cited above:

Facial challenges allege that a particular law is unconstitutional in all of its applications, meaning that a court must effectively strike it from the books. They stand in contrast to weaker “as-applied” challenges, which allege that a law is unconstitutional only when enforced against a particular party. As Roberts explains, facial challenges are notoriously difficult to win — the party challenging the law must “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”

So, it is possible that if Rahami had simply said, “The law is invalid as applied to me,” he might have won under Justice Roberts’ approach.

In the end, the Supreme Court has anointed itself as the final arbiter of every challenge to a gun regulation because no lower court can be certain that it has divined whether a regulation is “relevantly similar” to an “analogous regulation” that existed in 1791. Lower courts are effectively consigned to playing a game of Twenty Questions with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's inability to set forth a coherent, predictable, interpretable rule for lower courts is due to its rushing headlong to overturn long-established, settled precedent—as it did in Heller, Bruen, and Dobbs.

Again, in the words of Ian Millhiser,

Rahimi, in other words, is a monument to this Court’s arrogance, and its inability to admit its own mistakes. Bruen is an unworkable disaster that has caused mass confusion within the lower courts. It should be overruled in its entirety.

To similar effect, with a slightly more positive view of the opinion in Rahimi, see Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court Walks Back Clarence Thomas’ Guns Extremism. Stern writes,

By replacing Thomas’ hard-line views with a more malleable standard, SCOTUS has ended one battle over guns. But by remaining in this area, where it has no right to be in the first place, the court has invited a thousand more.

Finally, for a review of the various concurring opinions, see Chris Geidner’s Substack, Law Dork, What the justices are writing about when they write about Rahimi. Geidner includes the following excerpt of Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion, which will be the final word on the subject for today’s edition:

The Court today clarifies Bruen’s historical inquiry and rejects the dissent’s exacting historical test. I welcome that development. That being said, I remain troubled by Bruen’s myopic focus on history and tradition, which fails to give full consideration to the real and present stakes of the problems facing our society today. In my view, the Second Amendment allows legislators “to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence” not merely by asking what their predecessors at the time of the founding or Reconstruction thought, but by listening to their constituents and crafting new and appropriately tailored solutions.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[porterdavis]

District of Columbia v. Heller will be viewed with the same sorrowful contempt as Citizens United by survivors sitting on the rubble of what was once a proud, free nation.

[schraubd]

Is the Supreme Court Lying When It Purports To Place Limits on its Extreme Rulings? Third Circuit: Obviously, Yes

Today, the Third Circuit sitting en banc in Range v. Attorney General invalidated federal prohibitions on possession of firearms by convicted felons, at least in cases of non-violent offenders (Range had been convicted of food stamp fraud), but potentially in many other circumstances as well (via). This creates a circuit split with the Eighth Circuit's opinion last week in United States v. Jackson that I discussed here. 

The issue of felon disarmament under Bruen is interesting. At one level, it's always possible that any gun regulation might fall prey to Bruen's rigid history-or-bust methodology for determining constitutionality under the Second Amendment (though much here depends on necessarily subjective judgment regarding what counts as a proper historical analogy). But at another level, the felon prohibitions are distinct because Bruen (along with the other members of the Roberts trilogy on guns -- Heller and McDonald) were emphatic that these prohibitions should not be questioned under the Court's rulings. As Heller said: "The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons." This was reiterated in McDonald, and confirmed again in Justice Kavanaugh's Bruen concurrence.

How does the Third Circuit get around this seemingly very explicit language? By suggesting the Court cannot be trusted to mean what it says. 

The court in an opinion by Judge Hardiman analogized adhering to the Supreme Court's express declaration that these laws remained constitutional to how the Court talked about the application of means-end scrutiny in Heller. Heller suggested that the law in question in that case would be unconstitutional “[u]nder any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” Lower courts, Judge Hardiman continued, universally "overread that passing comment to require a two-step approach in Second Amendment cases, utilizing means-end scrutiny at the second step," an approach the Supreme Court ended up disavowing in Bruen. And so the Third Circuit says, in essence, it won't make the same mistake twice: it must be "careful not to overread" the language suggesting felon disarmament laws remain constitutional "as we and other circuits did with Heller’s statement that the District of Columbia firearm law would fail under any form of scrutiny."

In other words, the basic question is: can we trust the Supreme Court when it says, expressly, "our decisions should not be read to mean felon disarmament laws are unconstitutional"? Or was that a promise the Supreme Court never meant to keep? In fairness to the Third Circuit, given the choice between predicting (a) the Supreme Court will abide by its own expressly-stated doctrinal limits or (b) the Supreme Court will completely ignore its own promises the instant they seem to sanction gun control limits the Court dislikes, I'm hard-pressed to say that option b isn't the safer bet. But there is something discomforting about lower courts openly acknowledging that the best way to interpret the Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence is to assume that any limits the high court purported to place on Bruen's sweeping protections for guns everywhere-for-everyone-at-any-time are probably just lies.

As a sidenote, I'll also just say that I literally finished compiling my Con Law II course materials on the post-Bruen Second Amendment last night, and immediately had to revise them again to account for the Range decision. Again, spare a thought for the underappreciated constitutional law professor, the forgotten victims of the churn and chaos the Supreme Court has unleashed in our constitutional jurisprudence.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/JNaKwdE

[freetheshit-outofyou]

Spoken like a true product of academia. Mr. Golarz, you do understand, or at least you should understand that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole are not there to provide Rights to the government but put the government on notice of the Rights we as Free Citizens have already. It further lays out in the text the governments responsibility to protect our Rights, both individual and as a group. Our Rights preempt the Government, our Rights exist without the Government thus the GOOBERMENT cannot remove a Right, nor can they curb a Right for the convenience of the Government. "As a veteran, father, grandfather, and citizen I say the AR-15-style rifle must be outlawed in every corner of this country." and? Me too. Short rant: I am tired of Veteran's saying "I'm a Veteran" so my opinion is more weighted on a given subject. Bring a Veteran gives you no special secret squirrel insight into freedom beyond the fact that you have paid the bill for yours. I spent more than 20 Years in the Service, I am no more qualified dole out freedom as I see fit than I am to give freedom. BUT, (And there is always a but.) as an educated individual I understand that a Right is something you have from birth, no man or government get's to determine your level of participation in that Right, that is up to the individual. Also, I become suspicious of any Veteran who first advocated for the remove of Rights and freedoms, this flies in the face of our Oath. As a Veteran I do not get to cherry pick what Rights I like or what Rights I will defend. I have to defend them all. Case in Point: I do not think burning the flag in protest is ok. I don't think the flag should be made in to Underroos (dating myself there.) or swimwear, or any number of other novity items the flag is used for. With that said I will standby and defend a persons right to do just that because 1A says it is protected. I don't get to look past that protection provided by the Constitution just because I find it distasteful. In short, the Veteran qualifier means very little to me unless that qualifier is being use to show you have direct first hand knowledge over a subject. (I.E., A special forced operator knowing hoe to eat snakes better, and Infantry member knowing how to conduct ambush operations better, a combat engineer knowing how to blow shit up better. But the general blanket of "I'm a Veteran" so I have a more profound understanding of Rights is horseshit. I quickly discount Veterans who say shit like "The most Alice in Wonderland aspect of this gun controversy is the allowance, ownership, and use of automatic weapons of war — pure insanity." Mr. Golarz, the bulk of privately owned firearm's in the United States are not automatic. That was stopped in 1934, and further curtailed in 1986, The fact is, about 99.5% of all automatic firearms in the U.S. today are controlled and used by federal and state governments, no the citizenry of the U.S. When a person, any person, regardless of qualification advocates for the government to not only remove a Right but make it a punishable crime after "a brief period of time" draws an extra level of scrutiny and skepticism from me, more so when they try to qualify that with the phrase "I'm a Veteran." End side rant. "Former Chief Justice Warren Burger summarized the action of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller as, “one of the greatest pieces of fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.” Years later Justice John Paul Stephens declared that the decision in Heller was the worst decision ever rendered by a Supreme Court." Why would you try to use Justice Stephens ridiculous quote when the SCOTUS has actual ruling that are so much worse in some cases still "good law", here are a few examples. (side note: Heller was not a bad ruling, it was a correct ruling.) First and foremost, Dred Scott v. Stanford (1857).

In one ruling the SCOTUS said Black folks could not be considered American Citizens ever. It did not matter if the person in question was a freed slave in a state of territory that allowed them rights and privilege's such as voting they were still mostly slaves and thus sub-human.

Buck v. Bell (1927).

This case that is still "Good law" says that forced sterilization of those with "intellectual disabilities" in the care of the state either through forced "in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy".

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his delivered opinion to the court.

Eugenics much?

Korematsu v. United States (1944).

SCOTUS ruled that people could be interned into prisons, all their money and possession taken based on how they looked and fear. (Yes, that is simplifying the case but that is what it boiled down to.) The court ruled that individual American Citizens Rights were out weighed by the Governments fear of their Citizens based exclusively on racial background.

Of course there are other turds like:

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), that Justice harry Blackmun called "an almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity." and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) that made donations to super PAC's protected under the 1st Amendment. I have been trying to post this for half the day. I had to remove all the source links, post the article first then reopen it and past in my part in, then repost it.

[mervekaratas]

"Concealed Carry"nin Tarihi

Concealed carry, şehirleşme ile paralel olarak evrilmiş bir kavramdır. Amerika'nın ilk dönemlerinde gizli taşıma normal değil, anormal olandı; hatta sahtekârlık veya suç niyetiyle ilişkilendirildiği için sıklıkla şüpheyle görülüyordu. Özellikle meşru müdafaa ve avlanmanın günlük meseleler olduğu sınır bölgelerinde ateşli silahları açıkça taşımak daha yaygındı.

Tabii, kentleşme arttıkça kamusal alanlarda silah taşımaya yönelik tutumlar da değişmeye başladı. Bazı eyaletler ve şehirler, gizli silahların taşınmasını kısıtlayan yasalar uygulamaya başladı. Örneğin, Kentucky 1813'te gizli taşımaya karşı ilk yasalardan birini çıkardı. Bu, kamu güvenliği ve şiddet potansiyeli konusundaki artan endişeyi yansıtıyordu.

Ancak İç Savaş'tan sonra ABD, özellikle Güney'de ve genişleyen batı sınırında, bir toplumsal karışıklık ve şiddet dönemi yaşadı. Bu süre zarfında birçok eyalet, ateşli silahların taşınmasını düzenleyen ve genellikle gizli silahlara odaklanan yasalar çıkardı. Bu yasalar bazen özellikle Afrikalı Amerikalılara ve diğer azınlık gruplarına karşı seçici olarak uygulandı.

1900'lerin başlarında kentsel alanlar büyümeye devam ettikçe ve suç daha fazla endişe verici hale geldikçe, gizli taşıma konusunda daha fazla kısıtlamalar görüldü. New York gibi eyaletler, gizlenebilecek kadar küçük bir ateşli silaha sahip olmak veya taşımak için ruhsat gerektiren 1911 Sullivan Yasası gibi katı silah kontrolü yasalarını kabul etti. Bu, ABD'deki ilk önemli silah kontrol yasalarından biriydi.

Daha sonra, 1968 Silah Kontrolü Yasası yürürlüğe girdi. Kennedy gibi önde gelen isimlerin öldürülmesinin ardından Kongre, 1968 Silah Kontrolü Yasası'nı kabul etti. Bu yasa, eyaletler arası ateşli silah ticaretini de düzenledi.

1970'ler ve 1980'lerde ise gizli taşıma konusundaki tartışmalar yoğunlaşmaya başladı. Pek çok eyalette, yerel yetkililerin gizli taşıma izinleri verip vermeme konusunda takdir yetkisine sahip olduğu yasalar vardı. Bu durum, tutarsız uygulamalara yol açtı. Bu nedenle, yetkililerin belirli kriterleri karşılayan başvuru sahiplerine izin vermesinin zorunlu olacağı düzenlemeler savunuldu.

1980'lerden itibaren eyaletler, gizli taşıma yasalarını benimsemeye başladı. Florida, 1987'de diğer eyaletler için model teşkil eden dönüm noktası niteliğindeki bir yasayı geçiren önemli bir oyuncuydu. Bu kanunlara göre, başvuru sahibinin yasal gereklilikleri (kontrollerden geçmek ve eğitimi tamamlamak gibi) karşılaması durumunda, kendisine gizli taşıma izni verilmesi gerekmekteydi.

1990'ların sonlarına gelindiğinde, birçok eyalet benzer yasalara geçti ve hatta bazıları, gizli ateşli silah taşımak için herhangi bir izne gerek olmayan "anayasal taşıma" yasalarını kabul etti. Gizli taşıma haklarını genişletme eğilimi 21. yüzyılda da devam etti ve daha fazla eyalet kısıtlamaları gevşetti.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ve McDonald v. Chicago (2010) davaları, gizli taşıma yasalarını etkileyerek bireysel silah taşıma hakkını güçlendirdi. Buna ek olarak, federal hükümet nitelikli kolluk kuvvetlerinin ülke çapında gizli silah taşımasına izin veren 2004 tarihli LEOSA gibi kanunları yürürlüğe koydu.

İşte ABD'deki concealed carry olayı, böyle dolambaçlı bir yolculukla evrilmiş ve bugünlere gelmiştir.

[scottdavene]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER - FULL TEXT

[graymanbriefing]

2nd Amendment Brief: Hawaii & National The Hawaii Supreme Court has rendered a ruling in the case of State v. Wilson finding "the right of the people to keep and bear arms... does not guarantee individual rights” and is instead a "collective right" that is relevant only in the context of militia service.  The court said "Hawaiʻi has never recognized a right to carry" and "there is no individual right to keep and bear arms...so there is no constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for possible self-defense."   The court compared the 2nd Amendment and the State's constitution and found that they both apply only to militias or military units claiming that only a "well regulated militia" has a right to "bear arms" and that the court will "limit the use of deadly weapons to a military purpose". The court cited the "Aloha Spirit" as justification for rejecting prior rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in District of Columbia v. Heller where the Second Amendment was affirmed to protect individual right to arms, the McDonald v. Chi... 》Poll: Did Hawaii get it right or did the violate the U.S. Constitution?

[hb-reynolds]

I received my first ever piece of hate mail off the back of this article - it was very plainly a copy pasted response from someone who hadn't read the article, but I still count it.

Full article available at the link or under the Read More

The NRA is one of the most successful lobbying groups in the USA, but what do they actually do? Heather Reynolds investigates its history and enduring influence.

The second amendment to the U.S.A constitution was implemented in 1791 and is defined colloquially as “the right to bear arms.” The full amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The intention behind the amendment was to ensure the government could never exert total control over its people. By having a people with the right to bear arms, the will of the people would prevail. The citizens of the U.S.A would have the power to overthrow their government by violent force if it was required.

The second amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms

The battle for gun control began in 1939 with United States v. Miller. This case set the precedent for gun regulation in the U.S. for the first time, wherein the court ruled that a sawn-off shotgun could not be of military use, and thus could be regulated against. This precedent stood for almost seventy years, not without challenge, but was eventually struck down in 2008, during the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The plaintiff, Heller, argued that Washington D.C.’s strict handgun ban was unconstitutional, as it contradicted the second amendment. Unlike the 1939 Supreme Court, which placed a great deal of emphasis on the military ties in the amendment, the 2008 Supreme Court sided with Heller for the abolition of the handgun ban.

The District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark case and ruled that the second amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, unconnected with the military, as this was the intention in which the amendment was made. This ruling revitalised the movement in the U.S.A to strengthen gun protection laws, and revitalised the National Rifle Association (NRA).The NRA is among the largest of the special interest lobbying groups in America, with an annual budget of $250 million and a membership that is typically placed between 3 and 5 million. When the NRA began in 1871, it originally pushed for better gun control, playing an active role in lobbying for both the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. However, its origins are not political in nature. It began as a scientific research and promotion group, and provided education for both communities and politicians alike. That is not to say that the NRA were not political, however it was not a key aspect of the organisation at the time. The NRA as an organisation did not become outwardly political until the 1970s forming of its Political Action Committee in 1977, which gave them the power to fund legislators as an organisation, allowing them to further their message.

This change in direction was not just a shift to political lobbying. The 1970s also saw a shift in the primary mission statement of the group; it no longer advocated for gun control. Instead it pushed heavily against any new legislation that could potentially hinder any individual from gaining access to a gun. This change in ethos correlates with a shift in leadership, as well as the shooting of long-time member Kenyon Ballew during a raid by the federal government in 1971. Ballew was under suspicion of stockpiling weaponry, made illegal by the Gun Control Act of 1968. The shooting paralysed Ballew and turned the NRA against the government, and began their lobbying against any gun control measure they attempted to introduce.The NRA has stuck with this stance ever since, with their members remaining active lobbyists against gun control. They have lobbied against the Manchin amendment, which would have prohibited those on the federal terrorism watchlist from purchasing firearms. Their reasons being, individuals who had not been charged of committing crimes could be added to the watchlist. They have also lobbied against multiple amendments to allow for a national database of gun owners, and against mental health histories being added to background checks.

Between their public appearances and their political lobbying, they leave little room for debate

In 1996, the NRA lobbied to put in place the Dickey amendment in 1996, which disallowed the Centre of Disease Control from allocating any funds towards researching gun related deaths, meaning that no major studies on gun control have been conducted in the US for over 20 years. Outside of their lobbying efforts, they have also appeared in the media several times to dispute claims that gun control could have prevented mass shootings, going as far as to claim that the Sandy Hook Massacre of 2012, in which 20 children were murdered, was faked by the government to push for stronger gun legislation.

The NRA has been pivotal in decrying, delaying, and halting any movement involving gun control at every level of government since 1977, spreading misinformation and twisting circumstances until they appear to be the saner choice. Between their public appearances and their political lobbying, they leave little room for debate on gun control, and no room for any change in the stance of the politicians with whom they are associated.

[mr880fan]

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is one of the most controversial amendments in the Bill of Rights. It has been interpreted to mean different things by different people over the years. Some people argue that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own firearms for self-defense or hunting. Others argue that it only guarantees the right of states to maintain a militia. The Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment in several cases, most notably in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. The Second Amendment has been a source of great debate in recent years, as gun control laws have been proposed and enacted in some states. Supporters of gun control argue that such laws are necessary to protect public safety, while opponents argue that such laws infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The debate over the Second Amendment is likely to continue for many years to come. No matter where one stands on the issue, it is clear that the Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a right that should be respected and protected. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the most important constitutional rights in the United States. It is a part of the Bill of Rights and states that “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment is one of the most controversial topics in the United States. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, and it was the second amendment to be added to the Bill of Rights. The amendment was designed to protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, as well as to form a militia to protect the country from foreign and domestic threats. The amendment was intended to ensure that citizens had the right to protect themselves and their property from any threats. In recent years, the Second Amendment has become a source of debate and controversy. Many people argue that the amendment was meant to protect citizens’ right to own firearms for hunting and self-defense. Others argue that the amendment was intended to protect citizens’ right to form a militia to defend the nation. Proponents of gun control argue that the Second Amendment does not protect citizens’ right to own firearms for any purpose other than self-defense. They argue that the amendment does not give citizens the right to own firearms for hunting or other recreational activities. Gun control advocates argue that the Second Amendment should be interpreted in light of the current context in which firearms are used to commit violent crimes. Opponents of gun control argue that the Second Amendment does protect citizens’ right to own firearms for any purpose. They argue that the amendment was intended to protect citizens’ right to keep and bear arms for any purpose, including hunting and recreational activities. They also argue that the amendment should not be interpreted in light of the current context in which firearms are used to commit violent crimes. The Second Amendment is a source of debate and controversy in the United States. No matter what side of the debate one is on, it is important to understand the amendment and its implications. The amendment is a fundamental part of the United States Constitution and its interpretation is an important part of the nation’s history. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the most important and controversial amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment grants citizens of the United States the right to bear arms. This amendment has been the source of much debate and legal battles over the years. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 and states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment is often interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to own firearms, although this has been a matter of debate. Proponents of the Second Amendment argue that citizens must be able to protect themselves and their families. They also argue that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition of hunting and recreation. On the other hand, opponents of the Second Amendment argue that it contributes to gun violence and makes it easier for criminals to obtain firearms. In recent years, the Second Amendment has been the subject of much debate and legal battles. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals have the right to bear arms for self-defense, although the ruling left some questions unanswered. Since then, there have been many legal challenges to various state and federal gun laws. Overall, the Second Amendment is one of the most important and controversial amendments in the Bill of Rights. It has been the source of much debate and legal battles over the years. While some argue that citizens must be able to protect themselves and their families, others argue that it contributes to gun violence and makes it easier for criminals to obtain firearms. Whatever the case may be, the Second Amendment has been an important part of the American legal system for centuries. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the most important and controversial amendments in the Bill of Rights. It reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms, but the exact meaning of the amendment has been the subject of much debate over the years. The Second Amendment has been a source of contention since its inception. Proponents of gun rights argue that the amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms, while opponents of gun rights argue that the amendment only guarantees a collective right to bear arms in the context of a militia. The Supreme Court has been asked to decide the meaning of the Second Amendment on numerous occasions, and the Court’s decisions have been mixed. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. This decision has been cited by gun rights activists as a major victory. However, the Court also noted that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unlimited right to bear arms and that certain restrictions on gun ownership are permissible. The debate over the Second Amendment is likely to continue for many years to come. Regardless of one’s opinion on the Second Amendment, it is important to remember that the amendment is an important part of the Constitution and an important part of our nation’s history. It is a reminder of the importance of the right to bear arms and the importance of protecting our rights as citizens. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the most controversial topics in the country today. It was added to the Constitution in 1791, and it states that “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This amendment has been interpreted in many different ways since it was added to the Constitution. Some people argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms. They believe that the amendment was written to ensure that citizens could protect themselves from any potential threats. Others believe that the amendment only applies to the militia and that individuals should not be allowed to own guns. This argument stems from the fact that the amendment does not explicitly state that individuals have the right to bear arms. The debate over the Second Amendment has been ongoing for decades, and it is still a hot-button issue today. The Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue several times, ruling that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the individual right to own firearms. However, the court has also ruled that this right can be regulated by the government in certain circumstances. The Second Amendment is an important part of the United States Constitution, and it is a topic that is sure to be debated for many years to come. It is important to remember that the Second Amendment is not an absolute right and that it can be regulated by the government in certain circumstances. It is also important to remember that the Second Amendment was written to ensure that citizens could protect themselves from any potential threats. Read the full article

[dan6085]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights, which was added to the Constitution in 1791. The Second Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment has been the subject of much debate and controversy over the years, particularly regarding the interpretation of its language and its application in modern times.

One interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it guarantees an individual right to own and carry firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes. This interpretation has been affirmed by several Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

However, others argue that the Second Amendment only protects the right to bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia, and that it does not grant an unrestricted right to own and carry firearms.

The issue of gun control has also been a major point of contention in recent years, with some advocating for stricter regulations on firearms in order to reduce gun violence, while others argue that such regulations infringe on their Second Amendment rights.

Overall, the Second Amendment remains a subject of ongoing debate and interpretation in the United States, and its meaning and application are likely to continue to be a source of controversy and discussion in the years to come.

There are many reasons why some Americans have a strong attachment to guns. These reasons vary from person to person and include cultural, historical, and political factors.

One reason is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. This amendment is often cited as a source of pride and identity for gun owners who believe in the importance of individual freedom and self-protection.

Another reason is the frontier mentality that pervades American culture. The idea of self-reliance and the ability to defend oneself is deeply ingrained in the American psyche, and for many, owning a gun is seen as a way to ensure personal safety and security.

Additionally, guns are often associated with hunting and recreational activities such as target shooting and sport shooting. For many Americans, these activities are a cherished part of their lifestyle and identity.

There are also those who see guns as a symbol of power and control. They may see owning a gun as a way to assert their dominance and authority over others.

It's important to note that not all Americans love guns, and there is a growing movement in the country to regulate firearms more strictly. However, the reasons for the strong attachment to guns in some parts of the country are complex and multifaceted.

Gun violence is a significant problem in many countries, including the United States. Gun violence can take many forms, including homicides, suicides, accidental shootings, and mass shootings.

In the United States, gun violence is a particularly pressing issue, with tens of thousands of people killed or injured by firearms each year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were over 43,000 firearm deaths in the United States in 2020, including homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings.

The causes of gun violence are complex and multifaceted, and include factors such as poverty, mental illness, domestic violence, and access to firearms. Research has shown that areas with higher rates of gun ownership tend to have higher rates of gun violence.

Efforts to reduce gun violence have been the subject of significant debate and controversy in the United States. Some advocate for stricter regulations on firearms, including background checks, bans on certain types of firearms, and restrictions on access to firearms for individuals with a history of violence or mental illness.

Others argue that such regulations violate the Second Amendment and that the focus should be on addressing the root causes of gun violence, such as poverty, mental illness, and social inequality.

Regardless of the approach taken, addressing the problem of gun violence is an important challenge that requires a concerted effort from policymakers, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and the broader community.

[shortfeedshq]

Clarence Thomas: A Supreme Court Justice's Life and Career

Clarence Thomas is a prominent figure in the legal world, known for his role as a Supreme Court Justice. His life and career have been marked by both controversy and accomplishment. In this article, we will explore his background, his rise to the Supreme Court, and some of the key decisions he has been a part of. Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Georgia. He grew up in a rural area and faced numerous challenges during his childhood. Despite these obstacles, he went on to achieve great success in the legal profession, ultimately becoming a Supreme Court Justice in 1991. Over the years, he has been involved in many controversial cases, making him a polarizing figure in the legal world. The Early Years of Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas grew up in a large family with ten siblings. His parents were sharecroppers, and money was tight. When he was seven, his father left the family, leaving his mother to raise the children alone. This forced the family to move around frequently in search of work. Thomas struggled academically in his early years, but with the help of a strict Catholic education, he was able to turn things around. Education and Early Career After high school, Thomas attended the College of the Holy Cross, where he graduated with a degree in English in 1971. He went on to attend Yale Law School, where he earned his law degree in 1974. After law school, he worked for a few years as an attorney in Missouri and then for the Reagan administration. Clarence Thomas as a Judge In 1981, President Reagan appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He served in this position for ten years before being nominated by President George H.W. Bush for a seat on the Supreme Court. The Confirmation Hearings Thomas's confirmation hearings were highly controversial. Anita Hill, a former colleague, accused him of sexual harassment, and the hearings became a media circus. Despite the allegations, Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1991. Key Cases Since joining the Supreme Court, Thomas has been involved in many important cases. Here are just a few examples: Bush v. Gore In 2000, Thomas was part of the majority decision in Bush v. Gore, which effectively ended the recount of the presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The decision was highly controversial and remains controversial to this day. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission In 2010, Thomas was part of the majority decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of political candidates, leading to concerns about the influence of money in politics. District of Columbia v. Heller In 2008, Thomas was part of the majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The decision held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Clarence Thomas: A Polarizing Figure Throughout his career, Clarence Thomas has been a polarizing figure. Some see him as a champion of conservative values, while others view him as a threat to civil rights and progressive ideals. Whatever one's opinion of him may be, there is no denying that he has had a significant impact on the legal world. FAQs Q1. What are some of the key cases Clarence Thomas has been involved in on the Supreme Court? A1. Clarence Thomas has been involved in many key cases during his time on the Supreme Court. Some notable examples include Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and District of Columbia v. Heller. Q2. What is the controversy surrounding Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings? A2. Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings were controversial due to the allegations of sexual harassment made by Anita Hill, a former colleague. The hearings became a media circus and polarized public opinion, ultimately resulting in Thomas's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Q3. What is Clarence Thomas's judicial philosophy? A3. Clarence Thomas is known for his conservative judicial philosophy. He believes in interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning, rather than interpreting it in a way that aligns with contemporary social or political views. Q4. What is Clarence Thomas's stance on gun control? A4. Clarence Thomas is a strong supporter of gun rights and has been involved in several key decisions that have expanded the Second Amendment's protection of an individual's right to bear arms. Q5. How has Clarence Thomas's background influenced his judicial decisions? A5. Clarence Thomas's background has undoubtedly influenced his judicial decisions. He grew up in poverty and faced discrimination as a black man in America. He has often spoken about his belief in individual responsibility and the importance of hard work, and these values have influenced his views on issues such as affirmative action and welfare policy. Q6. What is the significance of Clarence Thomas's tenure on the Supreme Court? A6. Clarence Thomas's tenure on the Supreme Court has been marked by controversy and achievement. He has been involved in many important decisions that have shaped American law and politics, and his influence on the court is likely to continue for years to come. Clarence Thomas is a polarizing figure in the legal world, known for his conservative judicial philosophy and involvement in many controversial cases. Despite the challenges he faced during his childhood, he went on to achieve great success in the legal profession, ultimately rising to the position of Supreme Court Justice. His legacy will undoubtedly continue to shape American law and politics for years to come. Read the full article

[productsreviewings]

Thomas didn't write many essential opinions. Due to his radical views on the regulation, he was not often requested by one of many Chief Justices to put in writing an opinion in a serious case. Supreme Courtroom Justice in 1993. Diana Walker/Getty Pictures However his dissenting response was nonetheless there. For instance, in a 1997 case referred to as Printz v. United States, Thomas wrote that the Second Modification gave a person the precise to bear arms. That is the primary time it has been mentioned within the Supreme Courtroom. However simply over a decade later, Justice Antonin Scalia upheld it in Heller v. District of Columbia. Based on Supreme Courtroom advocate Tom Goldstein, Thomas's dissenting opinion was "planting flowers in a backyard that he thinks will bloom lengthy from now."Not everybody agreed. Harvard Legislation Faculty professor Randall Kennedy mentioned Thomas's authorized pondering is healthier understood by trying on the Republican Celebration and Rush Limbaugh than by going again to the Structure or the autobiography of Malcolm X. Supply: The New Yorker, NPR, race

[frankterranella]

A strategy for addressing the issue of gun violence

It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment.

OK. Now that I have lost all the knee-jerk gun rights absolutists, the rest of us can have a reasonable discussion of what to do about the epidemic of gun violence.

Just last year, the Constitutional right to abortion was overturned because a group of committed people, many of them very religious, found the killing of unborn babies by a doctor’s knife to be intolerable. But many of those same people would have us take no action whatsoever if that same baby was born and (while still a baby) was killed by a gun.

I happen to be pro life whether the child is killed by a doctor or by an armed teenager. And yes I recognize the difference between born and unborn, but dead is dead. Although in my mind, the more tragic death is the death of a three-year-old child, not a 3-month-old unborn child.

So how is it that there is a right for just about anyone to have military -style weapons that are used daily to commit mass murder? Don’t tell me that that’s what the Founding Fathers intended, because history shows that not to be true. The 2nd Amendment was never viewed by courts as guaranteeing an individual’s right to own a gun unconnected with service in a militia until the Supreme Court made that ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. So for 217 years after the passage of the 2nd Amendment, there was no such recognized legal right.

Traditionally, when the Supreme Court has made a constitutional ruling that has brought unwanted consequences for American society we have had two choices: (a) bring a new case and try to get the disastrous ruling overturned, or (b) pass a Constitutional Amendment to nullify the ruling. The anti-abortion lobby tried both and eventually succeeded with the former. What can the anti-gun lobby do?

I think while passing a Constitutional Amendment to repeal an earlier Amendment is possible (that’s how Prohibition was ended) the easier course is to bring a new case and hope that current events might return the Supreme Court to the position it has taken in all of America history apart from the last 15 years.

And what has happened in the last 15 years? The gun abuse fallout is so infamous that all I have to do is say the names Newtown, Uvalde, Santa Fe, Roseburg, Oakland, Rancho Tehama, Santa Monica, Marysville, and Parkland and you know the horrors. These mass shootings just involved schoolchildren. There are hundreds of others involving adults. Is this enough to make a difference? Possibly.  Here’s why.

The first time the Supreme Court considered gun rights was in the case of United States v. Cruikshank in 1875.This was a case where the Ku Klux Klan was trying to prohibit freed slaves from owning guns. The ex-slaves claimed that their 2nd Amendment rights were being violated. The Supreme Court ruled against them, writing that the 2nd Amendment: “was not intended to limit the powers of State governments in respect to their own citizens” and “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government” The Court went on to say “the second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress.” Therefore, any state law that restricts gun ownership was beyond the purview of the 2nd Amendment.

I am aware that the Supreme Court just last year disavowed this approach in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, but that was a 6-3 decision and three of the six justices in the majority filed concurring opinions that showed the possibility that their vote on this particular issue could be swayed if the facts of the case before them were different.

So rather than trying to amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment, I think the faster course to get the Court back to its original position on the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to argue that it was intended to prohibit only federal and not state gun laws. Let’s put the issue in the laps of state legislatures just like abortion is now.Why should the right to use a gun have broader protection than the right to use a scalpel? Each should be regulated in accord with local community standards.

I know this solution will not entirely please either side in this debate, but that’s the nature of compromise on hotly-contested issues like this.

So while I think that a total ban on guns with high-capacity magazines is something Congress should do, if all we can get passed right now are state laws to that effect, let’s do that. And when they’re challenged, let’s appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. And, like the anti-abortion forces, let’s do it again and again and again until it works.

We have to try everything we can to stop the gun violence that exists in no other country. So perhaps limiting the availability of certain guns as other countries have done is worth a try. If it doesn’t work, we can always change course and try something else. But doing nothing, as we have this entire century, is not acceptable.