Thread by @KageNoMishiDesu

@ChrisMurphyCT @SenBlumenthal @jahimes
Based on #nyrrvbruen (supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…) what is the required historical analog used to support Constitutionality of #HR1808? I've attached a link to the decision so you can see what is required to bypass the "unqualified command".

Please do not try to evade the question by claiming that SCOTUS has not considered the bill. SCOTUS spelled out the specific test for all such legislation. If you do not have a specific historical analog to the legislation, it fails the test.

If you are willfully supporting legislation which you either know or should know does not pass an existing and documented test for Constitutionality, then you would be in gross violation of your oath of office.

Obviously, you take your oath seriously, so I trust you have the specific historical analogs necessary for passing Constitutional muster readily available for anyone asking.

.@jahimes I notice that the House voted in favor of the Bill. A reminder:
“The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

What 1790s law is analogous to the bill the House just voted in favor of? If you can not cite such a law & you voted for it, then I must conclude you have violated your oath of office.

If you feel inclined to cite Marbury v Madison, I will remind you that SCOTUS already spelled out the specific test for #2a constitutionality just over a month ago: supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…

If you & your colleagues willfully ignored the prescribed test laid out in Bruen, then you have intentionally violated your oath of office, in which you swore to uphold & protect the Constitution; instead willingly undermining it.