Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Kostas Moros Profile picture
@MorosKostas
Mar 7 • 5 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
Circuit Courts could not give less of a shit that the Supreme Court said interest balancing analysis is not appropriate. They are doing it anyway, and blatantly.

Will SCOTUS do anything about it?
Image
All their historical analogues are from the 20th century, except for bowie knife laws. But those were carry laws, not possession bans. Image
This is so misleading. Lots of states had concealed carry restrictions on bowie knives and other weapons, yes. A few taxed them. One or two banned sales. But as David Kopel explained in his article on this topic, no state banned bowie knife possession by the end of the 19th century.Image
They basically rewrite "dangerous and unusual" into "dangerous or unusual", even if they do not say that.Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with Kostas Moros

Kostas Moros 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 @MorosKostas

Kostas Moros Profile picture
Mar 8
California has filed its reply in May and Carralero, so here's a thread on some of my thoughts.

You can read it here:

Starting off, I won't speak for the Carralero plaintiffs, but our point was that such security is an indication of what government truly considers to be sensitive, as opposed to things it claims in bad faith are sensitive in order to restrict carry.drive.google.com/file/d/1hs8JXk…Image
Bruen demands representative historical laws. If there are only a few outliers, then they are not representative of our historical tradition. Image
I don't even know what to tell them here besides to go read Bruen.

This seems to just be adopting the Second Circuit's poor analysis that Bruen doesn't apply unless the violation is blatant, or something. Image
Read 20 tweets
Kostas Moros Profile picture
Feb 22
The first of the three CRPA vs. LASD oppositions is in, from La Verne. Two more expected today from LASD and the Attorney General.

Granted I have my bias, but I am not impressed with this brief in the least. They cite almost no caselaw to support them, and their argument boils down to "other cities are doing it so we can too!".

On the psych exam, they don't address any of the points we made about why this particular exam is especially abusive, requiring a drive of an hour each way, only on weekdays.
The DOJ brief is in now too, and I'm still reading through it, but it's interesting that they spend a lot of time justifying the idea of permits as a concept. That's not really our argument here. their point seems to be that local regulation is allowed, but California doesn't even provide a pathway for nonresidents to get a permit, let alone honor permits of other states.
Additionally, when you read through the historical examples of local permitting laws in the Spitzer declaration, almost all pertained only to concealed carry only. And all were from after the civil war.
Read 9 tweets
Kostas Moros Profile picture
Feb 16
As is often the case with a shooting that breaks into the national debate, we already see celebrities, media elites, and others lining up to talk down to conservatives about how heartless they are being for not passing more gun laws.

To understand this apparent conservative intransigence on guns, you have to be aware of a few points:

1. Conservatives do not have any power in most large cities. Kansas City, for example, has had only Democrat mayors since 1930, save for one exception who left office back in 1991. Given these cities have completely rejected them politically, conservatives don't feel particularly responsible for their plight.

2. Much of Hollywood hates conservatives and makes that clear. Being a conservative usually means making peace with the fact that most of the artists and other famous people you enjoy following despise your beliefs. Not all, to be sure, but a very large amount.

3. Conservative voters are often not particularly wealthy, with a number of rural towns struggling a lot in recent years. Drugs have become a major problem, as have deaths of despair more generally.

4. They've watched in horror as more and more cities have increasingly let criminals walk with little or no consequences. They also saw rioters go completely unpunished in 2020 because they were rioting for "the right reasons".

5. They increasingly do not identify with the prevailing values of many large cities, which they see as immoral and irresponsible.

6. They've always had guns, and lots of them. They grew up with them and are comfortable around them. There can be problems with guns, namely as a tool for suicide. But murder with them is rare.

So poverty, drugs, resentment, and lots of guns. According to the gun control orthodoxy, this should equate to a bloodbath, right?

Wrong.

Take Missouri as an example. It had 629 gun-related homicides in 2022, a dismal number. But 474 of those were in just two major cities - St. Louis and Kansas City. Dozens of smaller counties did not have a single homicide of any kind, gun-related or otherwise.

If Kansas City and St. Louis combined to form their own state with their two million total people, they'd have a gun-related homicide rate of 23.7 per 100,000 people. The rest of Missouri, with a remaining population of over four million people? 3.7 per 100,000. About six times less.

So popular culture, famous athletes and the major media come demanding of these people that they have to curtail their own rights, because cities in which they have no power can't get their shit together? When the leaders of those cities constantly talk down to them and despise them, no less?

Why would you expect these conservative-leaning populations to listen to your lectures? You've accepted none of their ideas, you've tried the same thing over and over for decades, and the resulting high violent crime is, to them, entirely predictable.

We've seen that it doesn't have to be this way. Look at what Mayor Suarez, one of the few Republican big city mayors, has accomplished in Miami.

Contrary to racist views that success in big cities are limited to those that are very white, Miami is a very diverse city where white people make up less than half the population. It also had a horrifyingly violent past in relatively recent history ("The Year of Dangerous Days" by Nicholas Griffin is quite a good read on that topic). In 1980, homicides in the city reached an astonishing 220 dead.

Last year, Miami had 31 homicides. That's the lowest in its history. In 1947, the first year they counted, it had 32, and the population back then was much lower than today. This is in a state that enacted constitutional carry recently too, for all those who warned that too would be a disaster. It hasn't been a problem.

So quit lecturing conservatives, quit demanding others compromise their rights, and quit voting for the same failed leadership pushing the same trash ideologies of government dependence, tolerance for criminality, and failure.

The continued devastation seen in cities like Kansas City is the CHOICE of its voters. And until they make a different one, they have only themselves to blame.Image
Source:

cbsnews.com/miami/news/mia…
foxnews.com/opinion/miami-…
Read 4 tweets
Kostas Moros Profile picture
Feb 15
My first* law review article is now published. Coauthored with @CRPAPresident, we go through the overwhelming history that demonstrates that so-called "assault weapons" are what earlier generations would consider to be the most protected arms of all under the Second Amendment. Link below for those who want to read the final version.

*and with how much work this was, maybe it will be my only law review article.🤣Image
scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewconten…
Thanks again to @davekopel for being the primary reason these ideas were polished into a thorough and citable law review article, when I was originally going to put it on some blog haha. Had not even occurred to me to go this route.
Read 4 tweets
Kostas Moros Profile picture
Feb 7
The Hawaii Supreme Court released a ruling that sounds like Everytown wrote it for them. They say Heller was wrongly decided, and talk about the historical tradition of the former Kingdom of Hawaii as if that is at all relevant.

A lowlights thread. Image
Note that this "crime" occurred pre-Bruen, when Hawaii had never issued any permit to anyone. So it's insane the State gets to argue he should have applied for a CCW permit.Image
Again, before Bruen, Hawaii had never issued a CCW permit to ANYONE. It's insane that the State Supreme Court says he should have done a futile act back in 2017 to have standing. Image
Read 33 tweets
Kostas Moros Profile picture
Feb 6
Alright, I try and avoid bothering Jake but this is one of our cases. So a quick thread.

For one, the "innovation" in question is an ammunition background check that forces people to pay money each time they buy ammunition, that wrongly denies over 10% of buyers, and of the very few actually prohibited people it catches, the State arrests just 2%. The purpose of this "innovation" seems to be harassing law-abiding gun owners, not stopping crime.
Bruen itself cautions against reliance on pre-founding history, so I don't get how this is arbitrary.

In a reply to a comment on this, Jake asserts that no true originalist would argue a law from 1786 is less persuasive than one from 1787. I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here. Besides one law that was a declaration of rights for protestants, the newest English law the State presented was from 1689. I don't know why anyone would think that particularly relevant.Image
I'm curious what other rights anyone would look at with this framework.

"Well yes but the founders could have restricted religion more if they wanted to!"

Bruen's analogical analysis is the window the state has to go beyond what came before in order to deal with new challenges and new technologies (ammunition buying is neither).

Yes, it is a tough standard. As it should be, this is a constitutional right.Image
Read 9 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(