This is a much bigger deal than what they decide in the actual case. A "text, history, and tradition" standard would probably result in many modern gun laws being struck down, such as "assault weapons" bans.
Interestingly, the US Solicitor General was on board with using the standard. His argument was that it should be used in cases where the history provides a clear answer and the court should default to intermediate scrutiny otherwise.
Plaintiffs took the opposite view. They want strict scrutiny if the court doesn't go with text, history, and tradition.
You can read the full exchange here, but I found the government's position to be pretty interesting. They argue history is on New York's side when it comes to its restrictive concealed carry law. It's a good preview of how these laws will be defended. thereload.com/scotus-ponders…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you want to read the "text, history, tradition" argument for why New York's restrictive concealed carry law is constitutional under Heller/McDonald, this is the best paper I've seen to that end.
The US made a similar argument at the Court. Concealed carry bans and "good reason" permit schemes date back to reconstruction. They were even relatively common by the 20th century. So, there is more of a historical record to back them up in a text, history, tradition test.
One big problem with the argument is total bans on carry, which is closer to what New York has in practice, were rarer. And many involved carry with the intent to terrorize people. Alito noted this in a North Carolina statute that was brought up.
Roberts is asking the plaintiffs about what they see as the limits of the Second Amendment's protections for concealed carry. He asks what locations could a government block those with permits from carrying guns.
Plaintiffs respond that places like schools would be an example. They say "sensitive place" restrictions are different from a ban on all concealed carry.
Winsome Sears is the first black woman to win statewide office in Virginia. She is also another nail in the coffin of the "assault weapons" ban gun-control activists have been unsuccessfully pursuing in Virginia since 2019. thereload.com/gun-control-in…
This is honestly embarrassing. I've seen more balanced and serious Second Amendment analysis from literal gun-control groups. I laughed when the reporter puzzled through who exactly has the right to keep and bear arms. If only the Constitution directly told us that part!
This report couldn't even get the basics right. 8 states have may-issue concealed-carry laws, not 6. Miller said the sawed off shotguns weren't protected under the Second Amendment because they weren't useful in militia service, not because the plaintiffs weren't in the militia.
Did the people putting together this report ever wonder why the Supreme Court didn't take a Second Amendment case until 1939? Could it be because the federal government didn't have gun laws until that decade? But, how could that be if everyone agreed gun rights weren't real? 🤔
This gets the broad strokes right but also includes a bunch of bizarre claims. No, it's not easier to get a handgun than to do "just about anything else in this country." They aren't popular just because of "sheer availability." AR-15s do not have bigger bullets than handguns.
The piece also features a quote from a gun-control supporter asking for a single reason why anyone would own a gun and concluding there isn't one. It's fair to include his perspective, but they don't provide anyone to give a reason why they own a gun.
The reader is left with the implication nobody could give a single good reason to own a gun. But, only about 43% of American households report owning a gun. So, I guess it's difficult to find a source to give you their perspective on why they choose to do so.
There may be circumstances where live ammunition is needed for filming, but it should never be stored anywhere near blanks. Really, it'd be better to film any live ammo scene at a different location or different date than any scene involving blanks.
This report claims the gun was handled by at least three people who thought it was unloaded. Nobody took the few moments necessary to check the cylinder to verify it was actually unloaded. This could have been stopped at several different points by several different people.