A recent article published in Bloomberg Law reports that the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision is creating confusion amongst not only judges but attorneys and legal scholars as well.
The piece is titled, “Judges Confused by Supreme Court’s Historical Test for Gun Laws.“
The reporter, Lydia Wheeler, writes, “Establishing a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public in a landmark 2022 decision forced lower courts to play historian and look to Colonial-era laws to justify the lawfulness of gun restrictions, a duty that has frustrated some judges.”
Table of contents
What Critics Are Saying
Wheeler then goes on to quote a few judges in the article along with UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. Here are some excerpts:
“Judges are not historians,” Judge Carlton Reeves of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi said in dismissing a case after finding no history or tradition to support upholding the federal ban on convicted felons having guns. “We were not trained as historians. We practiced law, not history.”
“The court adopted this bizarre test that requires gun laws today to be consistent with the gun laws of the 17 and 1800s,” Winkler said. “And given how many of our gun laws are modern 20th century inventions, designed to respond to the problems of a modern urbanized society, this test has proven to be a disaster.”
For review, Bruen did the following:
- It established a new test for evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws. Under this test, states must show that their gun laws are consistent with the “historical tradition” of firearm regulation.
- It struck down “may-issue” concealed carry permitting systems, which give authorities the discretion to deny permits based on subjective criteria.
NSSF Responds
GunsAmerica got in touch with the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) to see what they make of all this Bruen confusion.
Mark Oliva, the managing director of public affairs at NSSF, doesn’t buy into the idea that it’s all that confusing.
“Bruen is straightforward. Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion threw out the lower courts’ use of interest-balancing tests, which were unconstitutional from inception. No other right was subjected to multiple steps to determine if that right belongs to individuals and not to the government to treat as a privilege that can be doled out according to the whims of bureaucrats,” he said via email.
Oliva thinks all the worrying over when rights kick in and which ones count is just a bunch of hot air.
“The navel-gazing by legal scholars and authorities seems more to be over the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down their unconstitutional tests. The handwringing of when rights begin and which rights apply is nonsense,” he continued. “The Constitution is clear. Our rights are endowed by our Creator, not conferred by governments. The Founders were clear that Second Amendment rights belonging to the people didn’t apply to flintlock muskets but arms.”
Oliva points out that we all understand that the First Amendment’s got our backs in the Internet age, even though the Founders never saw that coming. So, why wouldn’t the Second Amendment cover new tech too?
“Debates to minimalize Bruen and nothing short of attempts claw away rights that belong to citizens,” Oliva concluded.
What are your thoughts?
We’ve heard from the judges, legal scholars, and the NSSF. Now, we want to hear from you. Is the Bruen decision as clear-cut as Mark Oliva suggests, or do you side with those who find it murky and confusing?
Maybe you’ve got a totally different perspective? Whatever your thoughts, we’re interested! Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
Does Bloomberg want this logic applied to the Freedom of the Press???
The first ten amendments define and protect individual rights. Except of course for the DNA-level Bolshies like Bloomberg…2A is a collective right, to be granted and controlled by the government for its purposes, and no individual application.
If you told this to one of the writers of the Constitution, they would have looked at you as if you were speaking Farsi. Collective right? What is **that?** A concept that didn’t have its foul birthing pangs until the French Revolution, and grew to stunted malevolent teens and adulthood with Marx and the Russian/Chinese Revolutions. And its evil adherents, given refuge in America from a Europe that hated them, formed their Frankfurt Schools and Alinsky covens in the cities, doing the Long March to..today.
No, Bloomberg, we know you and what you are about. This far and no further.
All of our rights and all of our traditions are constantly under attack and always have been. It’s true that they (our would-be oppressors) step back to regroup occasionally, but they are always planning and looking for that chink in our armor of vigilance. This was preached to me at an early age (by nuns in grade school!), that our oppressors’ strategy is to take two steps forward, then one step back. I have found this to be absolutely true. We cannot let our guard down, ever! There are folks fighting every day to keep guard and protect our rights. They need our support ($$$). Our foes: Soros, Bloomberg, CCP (Chinese Communist Party), radical democrats and many others have limitless funding. Give! Stay safe.
A government that is afraid for citizens to have guns is a government citizens should be afraid of. The first rule for establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the population you want to rule over. The British did it when they ruled America. It took a war to overcome them. Unless you fight against the destruction of all constitutional rights the country will be taken over by want to be Dictators and Fascists. Losing your constitutional rights one by one is the first step to dissolving all rights and the death of a democracy.
RESIST
Judges and lawyers are trained in historical research! How else can they quote case law to overcome this and that. When a judge makes the comment of not being a historian, he is no longer fit for the bench. A judge as it has been described, is an authoritarian on the law, he/she must be able to find, Interpret, and orate the many cases throughout our history and within confines of the case law library. Any other statement is sheer laziness, with the amount of fees they charge, well you know what I mean. I have complete faith in what SCOTUS has presented, after all they researched and based their decision and plainly laid it out for all to see. Bunch of cry babies.
It may be confusing for an anti-American treasonist, but not for an American patriot.
The Second Amendment is clear, but written with verbiage not used today. The historical intent was to not allow the government to infringe on the citizen’s ability to protect themselves, their lands, property and others from tyranny. That includes aiding the government in protecting our nation. That essentially means, don’t regulate firearms. Legal precedent is based on historical facts sometimes referred to as case law. This is just an anti-2A stance aimed at finding traction for a new argument. It is similar to using the argument/talking point of having to have a driver’s license versus just being an adult and buying a firearm. Simple: the US Constitution protects firearms, it says nothing about cars or driver’s licenses. God Bless America.
There is a select group of people who wish to see this country fall. I fear in less than 2-3 generations they may succeed. There will be big push for digital currency and chips to replace badges for employees. Get the chip or you will not be able to get a job ,access you banking informatoin or drive your car. If you can lock a person out of society you can control them. GPS will be included.
How hard is it to understand that criminal actions haven’t changed for thousands of years. The laws are created for punishing the action of the crime committed. Not the to punish those who follow the law. The only way to take control of America is by force. “They can’t do that unless the eagles wings are bound and his talons removed”.
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Doesn’t take a “legal scholar” to figure that one out!!! Kinda makes you wonder what “government ” has inind for us after we have been disarmed?!?!
The Bill of Rights limits government NOT the people!!!
good old “trailer park” law going on now