Since Bruen, lower court judges applying its test have been, to use a legal term of art, all over the place, a fact repeatedly highlighted during oral arguments by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who sought some, any, guidance on how the court should understand its own ruling. Again, lower courts are equally confused. One court, for example, decided that Florida’s ban on the sale of guns to 18-to-20-year-olds passed constitutional muster; another concluded that a federal law disarming people convicted of certain crimes perhaps did not.

A few judges have publicly aired their frustrations with the sudden analytical primacy of law-office history. “We are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791,” wrote one in 2022. “Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.” Another castigated the court for creating a game of “historical Where’s Waldo” that entails “mountains of work for district courts that must now deal with Bruen-related arguments in nearly every criminal case in which a firearm is found.”

Just goes to show how shitty, stupid, and partisan this Trump Supreme Court is.

  • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Someone at some point said this and I agree that if everyone only had access to muskets that take anywhere from 30seconds to a minute just to load a single shot then everyone gets a gun. No problem. BUT we now have guns that can practically empty their clips in the same time it took to load a musket. And no matter how imaginative any of the founding fathers were they could never have concieved of how deadly guns would get in just a couple hundred years. So to try and use them now as any basis for how we craft gun laws is the height of madness.

    On top of all this we have definitive verifiable proof that restricting access to firearms DOES reduce gun violence. ESPECIALLY school shootings. Other countries have done it and it works!

    If you are a responsible gun owner, enthusiast or defender and you can’t get behind restricting gun access for the health and safety of everyone then you’re NOT responsible you’re reprehensible.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a false trope that always gets brought out in the gun control arguments.

      There were actually magazine-fed repeating rifles in the era of the founding of the USA. In 1779 the Girandoni air rifle was produced, which was carried by Lewis & Clark on their expedition across the frontier. It was a repeating rifle that could fire at least 19 times and was as powerful as a 9mm handgun cartridge from modern times, but more accurate up to 300 yards.

      There was also the Puckle gun (machine gun) and the Gatling gun is pretty old too.

      So to claim that the authors of the Constitution had “no idea” about how advanced guns could get is obviously false.

      • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        1500 pumps to fill the air reservoir, crew operated and the last weighed over 100lbs as well as crew operated. Most saw limited use and all had limited availability to the greater public. The founding fathers certainly didn’t imagine something even remotely close to an AR-15 even if they did understand how deadly guns are.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The founding fathers advocated for private ownership of literal cannons that are far more powerful than any ar-15.

            • Whoresradish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed. A big problem with the gun control debate is that on one hand we have lunatics able to massacre hundreds of children and on the other hand the right to bear arms exists so that people can defend their other rights when the government decides to be tyranical. I’ve heard the arguements that people can’t defend themselves from the modern military, but Vietnam’s handling of the US would be the counter arguement. The founding fathers and Karl Marx realized the importance of the people’s ability to defend againest tyranny. So all that being said, how do we keep the citizens armed while not letting crazies kill our children. To that I have no answer, but I hope that some kind of comprise can be reached.