Richardson reasons that (1) the age of majority at the Founding was 21, but (2) people as young as 16 were forced into militia service, so (3) people aged 18-20 today have a freestanding right to bear arms that is completely unattached to military service. Does that track?
If the age of militia service at the Founding dictates the age at which people can buy guns now, why don't 16-year-olds have a right to bear arms? Richardson says 21 is arbitrary, but isn't 18 just as arbitrary? Shouldn't 16-year-olds have a right to bear arms under his analysis?
Also, *why* does the age of militia service at the Founding dictate the age at which people can buy guns today? If the Second Amendment is now totally detached from military service, why does the age of 1791's militiamen bear on when modern people can guy guns for self-defense?
Put differently, if the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, why does the age at which boys were forced into the militia matter? Doesn't this analysis conflate a collective right (to maintain state militias) with an individual right?
Richardson simply cannot show that people age 18-20 had a right to buy firearms *for individual self-defense* in the 1790s, so he conflates mandatory militia service with an individual right to bear arms. It's a sleight of hand that cannot withstand serious scrutiny.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

12 Jul
On Friday, Biden fired Andrew Saul, a Trump holdover leading @SocialSecurity. Saul claimed he would attempt to come to work on Monday anyway. But today, a White House official told me: "The government has taken steps to offboard Andrew Saul as we would any other former employee."
Here is a White House official's full statement on Andrew Saul's refusal to accept his removal from @SocialSecurity.
The White House official also pointed me toward the Office of Legal Counsel's memo clearing the way for Saul's termination, which rests on the Supreme Court's recent decisions stripping removal protections from the heads of the CFPB and FHFA. justice.gov/olc/file/14107…
Read 6 tweets
10 Jul
This is long overdue. Andrew Saul and David Black were two especially noxious Trump holdovers who actively sought to sabotage the Social Security Administration.

Here's the OLC memo Biden relied on for legal authority to fire them. It's airtight: justice.gov/olc/file/14107…
The Supreme Court's decisions in Seila Law and Collins v. Yellen obviously allow Biden to fire Trump's terrible Social Security Commissioners. It would've been astoundingly naive and foolish for Biden to let them keep subverting Social Security—and undercutting his own agenda.
In June, Justice Kagan explicitly noted that the Supreme Court's recent "unitary executive" decisions give the president authority to terminate the head of the Social Security Administration, as Biden just did.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Read 5 tweets
8 Jul
Shoutout to the Supreme Court's conservatives, whose 2010 decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB allowed Joe Biden's SEC chair to replace every member of a Trump-stacked board that oversees audits of public companies. wsj.com/articles/audit…
Biden already fired William Duhnke, Trump's chair of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Now he'll replace the entire board with progressive regulators. All thanks to SCOTUS's conservatives, who struck down removal protections for the board. wsj.com/articles/sec-r…
As I've noted before, the conservative legal movement's assault on removal protections at independent agencies—a scheme that sought to blow up countless regulations—has completely backfired and instead allowed Biden to seize control over these agencies. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Read 5 tweets
2 Jul
The Supreme Court has released its end-of-term "clean up" orders list: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court refuses to hear Arlene's Flowers, which involves a florist who refused to serve same-sex couples. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Gorsuch joins Thomas in suggesting that the Supreme Court consider overturning New York Times v. Sullivan, which provides strong First Amendment protections against defamation lawsuits brought by public figures. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Read 20 tweets
1 Jul
The Supreme Court's FIRST opinion of the day is in Brnovich, the Voting Rights Act case. It's a 6–3 decision with Alito writing the majority. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court holds that neither of Arizona's challenged voting restrictions violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court weakens, *but does not eradicate,* the Voting Rights Act's "results test"—which gauges the impact of voting restrictions on minorities—in cases (like this one) that involve "vote denial" rather than "vote dilution." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Read 11 tweets
29 Jun
As @ClaraJeffery has pointed out, RCV is ***not*** the reason for the delayed results in New York. RCV does not delay results. The wait is due to other factors, particularly a grace period for late-arriving ballots. Lowry's criticism is extreme bad faith.
fairvote.org/ranked_choice_…
Also, to claim that ranked choice voting somehow delays election results is to reveal that you have no fucking idea how ranked choice voting actually works. What absolute inanity. If he has the capacity for shame, which I doubt, Rich Lowry should be ashamed of himself.
What do conservatives think they have to gain by lying about ranked choice voting, anyway? It doesn't have a partisan valence. Or is this just another phase of their ongoing campaign to undermine confidence in the integrity of any election a Republican doesn't win?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(