 |
|
SCOTUS ruled on that
Posted on: September 16, 2024 at 13:34:00 CT
Spanky KU
Posts:
141362
Member For:
20.25 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
5
The Supreme Court said present-day laws need to be “relevantly similar” to regulations in place when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, or at the latest, by the time the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Which period is most applicable is up for debate.
Judges are also divided over exactly how similar the historical analogs need to be. For some judges, Founding Era laws that disarmed “distrusted” groups — like “Loyalists, Native Americans, Quakers, Catholics, and Blacks” — justify modern-day gun prohibitions on people who use illegal drugs or have committed nonviolent felonies.
But other judges have reached different conclusions, ruling that current laws are too substantially different in “how” and “why” they limit gun rights, or for whom, to be constitutional.
The burden of proving that a law is rooted in tradition falls to the government. If it can’t show that a regulation has a historical counterpart, that regulation is presumed to be unconstitutional. While most of the claims have been unsuccessful, challengers have succeeded in dozens of cases — far more often than before Bruen. This legal onslaught is pushing the boundaries of the new test and raising questions about the future of gun regulation in the United States.
https://www.thetrace.org/2024/09/bruen-ruling-scotus-second-amendment-gun/
Judges are also divided over exactly how similar the historical analogs need to be. For some judges, Founding Era laws that disarmed “distrusted” groups — like “Loyalists, Native Americans, Quakers, Catholics, and Blacks” — justify modern-day gun prohibitions on people who use illegal drugs or have committed nonviolent felonies.
But other judges have reached different conclusions, ruling that current laws are too substantially different in “how” and “why” they limit gun rights, or for whom, to be constitutional.
The burden of proving that a law is rooted in tradition falls to the government. If it can’t show that a regulation has a historical counterpart, that regulation is presumed to be unconstitutional. While most of the claims have been unsuccessful, challengers have succeeded in dozens of cases — far more often than before Bruen. This legal onslaught is pushing the boundaries of the new test and raising questions about the future of gun regulation in the United States.
https://www.thetrace.org/2024/09/bruen-ruling-scotus-second-amendment-gun/
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
SCOTUS ruled on that - Spanky KU - 9/16 13:34:00