So the Bruen decision came out more than a year ago, and it has scrambled how courts deal with gun control laws. Step back first. The way courts typically evaluate laws that putatively infringe on a constitutional right was through an analysis called
While I generally support expansive interpretations of the Bill of Rights, I’ll also point out that it’s very easy to be blase about gun control when you live in a neighborhood where you are less likely to hear gunshots.
I don't find this at all persuasive. You can acknowledge the dangers of gun violence and still disagree that gun control is an effective remedy. The same retort is used about drug criminalization, where being against the drug war is tarred as an indication that you're not sufficiently appreciative of the dangers of drug use.
One shouldn’t be blase about the social consequences of drug legalization either. In all cases we have to acknowledge that there are trade-offs, and that our likelihood of actually experiencing those trade-offs affects our opinions about those policies. I can’t discount the possibility that I would feel differently about supporting full drug legalization if I lived next to a crack house. Doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m wrong, just that I am somewhat removed from the consequences either way, which makes it easier to have the opinion that I have. Not arguing for any kind of identitarian deference, but whether you have skin in the game always matters.
This is why gun control is pushed so heavily... Its a way to avoid the issue of criminality and all the people on the street who should die in prison.
If certain demographics are firing guns its undeniable and has to be dealt with... if they're merely beating people into hospital or raping people then you can pressure the victim to drop charges or the prosecutor can claim the complainant is uncredible...
A dead body can't be badgered into dropping charges, or not filing a report.
I think gun control is pushed heavily because we live in a country with much higher rates of violence and premature death than any of our peer nations. Whether gun control is the correct approach is up for argument, but blaming the phenomenon of violence on “criminality” is completely meaningless.
The United States has no peer nations. The level of ethnic and cultural diversity that all have to figure out how to cooperate together in the US is unmatched.
Plus, the US is a nation of immigrants, which roughly translates to being a nation of risk-takers.
So cultural diversity and immigration is why our rates of premature death from accidents, suicides, and treatable health conditions are also so much higher than other developed countries? That’s a hot take.
Lol what? You asserted without evidence that our elevated rates of gun violence are explained by our cultural diversity and immigration. I’m arguing that doesn’t really make sense. But if you care to support your assertion, I’m all ears.
Thomas is the most principled "conservative" (I hate that word) on the court, followed closely by Alito. The other Republican justices are quite wishy-washy, and in effect it's a 7-2 liberal court on decisions that matter, with the exception of gun control. This is the real reason why globohomo has targeted Thomas again so viciously on fake conflict of interest smears in the media.
> But what about topics a little more heated, like guns? Judges have been squishier and far more willing to accept the government’s justifications that a given legal restrictions was “necessary”.
Nowadays, speech is also a heated topic.
Also the historical method is not so protective of speech. America only really got serious about the 1A in the 1960s.
I'm no 2A expert, but the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" standard seems similar to the "deeply rooted in the nation's history" requirement for determining substantive due process rights established in Glucksberg. This makes sense. We don't want judges inventing new rights and we want our reading of the constitution to be stable over time. I'm not an originalist and its not the standard I would create, but it makes sense that its one Thomas prescribed.
The clearly discriminatory firearm laws from history you referenced couldn't survive an equal protections analysis. And their more arbitrary/awkward aspects should be winnowed out to have some intelligible principle to base firearm laws off of. I can imagine that future litigation would revolve around finding historical analogues for certain gun laws (like how 7th amendment litigation looks at what kind of suits were "at common law" during ye old England). But hopefully afterwards there will be a settled standard over what is considered constitutional gun regulation under 2A, as its legal framework doesn't yet seem as sophisticated as 1A.
I was excited by the Bruen decision but reactionaries in the NY assembly passed the most restrictive gun restrictions in the country. “You want to carry a firearm? Here’s your permit, but practically the whole state is a gun-free zone, have a nice day.”
While I generally support expansive interpretations of the Bill of Rights, I’ll also point out that it’s very easy to be blase about gun control when you live in a neighborhood where you are less likely to hear gunshots.
I don't find this at all persuasive. You can acknowledge the dangers of gun violence and still disagree that gun control is an effective remedy. The same retort is used about drug criminalization, where being against the drug war is tarred as an indication that you're not sufficiently appreciative of the dangers of drug use.
One shouldn’t be blase about the social consequences of drug legalization either. In all cases we have to acknowledge that there are trade-offs, and that our likelihood of actually experiencing those trade-offs affects our opinions about those policies. I can’t discount the possibility that I would feel differently about supporting full drug legalization if I lived next to a crack house. Doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m wrong, just that I am somewhat removed from the consequences either way, which makes it easier to have the opinion that I have. Not arguing for any kind of identitarian deference, but whether you have skin in the game always matters.
This is why gun control is pushed so heavily... Its a way to avoid the issue of criminality and all the people on the street who should die in prison.
If certain demographics are firing guns its undeniable and has to be dealt with... if they're merely beating people into hospital or raping people then you can pressure the victim to drop charges or the prosecutor can claim the complainant is uncredible...
A dead body can't be badgered into dropping charges, or not filing a report.
I think gun control is pushed heavily because we live in a country with much higher rates of violence and premature death than any of our peer nations. Whether gun control is the correct approach is up for argument, but blaming the phenomenon of violence on “criminality” is completely meaningless.
The United States has no peer nations. The level of ethnic and cultural diversity that all have to figure out how to cooperate together in the US is unmatched.
Plus, the US is a nation of immigrants, which roughly translates to being a nation of risk-takers.
So cultural diversity and immigration is why our rates of premature death from accidents, suicides, and treatable health conditions are also so much higher than other developed countries? That’s a hot take.
Oh, so you're not interested in honest dialogue? My mistake. Carry on.
Lol what? You asserted without evidence that our elevated rates of gun violence are explained by our cultural diversity and immigration. I’m arguing that doesn’t really make sense. But if you care to support your assertion, I’m all ears.
Thomas is the most principled "conservative" (I hate that word) on the court, followed closely by Alito. The other Republican justices are quite wishy-washy, and in effect it's a 7-2 liberal court on decisions that matter, with the exception of gun control. This is the real reason why globohomo has targeted Thomas again so viciously on fake conflict of interest smears in the media.
All this makes worry for the 1st amendment.
> But what about topics a little more heated, like guns? Judges have been squishier and far more willing to accept the government’s justifications that a given legal restrictions was “necessary”.
Nowadays, speech is also a heated topic.
Also the historical method is not so protective of speech. America only really got serious about the 1A in the 1960s.
I'm no 2A expert, but the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" standard seems similar to the "deeply rooted in the nation's history" requirement for determining substantive due process rights established in Glucksberg. This makes sense. We don't want judges inventing new rights and we want our reading of the constitution to be stable over time. I'm not an originalist and its not the standard I would create, but it makes sense that its one Thomas prescribed.
The clearly discriminatory firearm laws from history you referenced couldn't survive an equal protections analysis. And their more arbitrary/awkward aspects should be winnowed out to have some intelligible principle to base firearm laws off of. I can imagine that future litigation would revolve around finding historical analogues for certain gun laws (like how 7th amendment litigation looks at what kind of suits were "at common law" during ye old England). But hopefully afterwards there will be a settled standard over what is considered constitutional gun regulation under 2A, as its legal framework doesn't yet seem as sophisticated as 1A.
I was excited by the Bruen decision but reactionaries in the NY assembly passed the most restrictive gun restrictions in the country. “You want to carry a firearm? Here’s your permit, but practically the whole state is a gun-free zone, have a nice day.”
TL;DR it's politics all the way down.
First the judge makes up his mind, then finds the justification.