The 5th Circuit rules a ban on gun possession by perpetrators of domestic violence is unconstitutional because such a ban never occurred to men in the 1700s
Great post. This is why originalism is a sham. If they were true to originalism, then the "right to bear arms" would apply ONLY if you are a member of a "well regulated militia" and for guns in use prior to 1790. Muskets are ok to own.
At a more basic level, does SCOTUS’s “history and tradition” 2nd amendment test even make sense? The test, taken on its own terms, doesn’t answer the questions it’s used to decide. Why, as a logical matter, should we think the “right to keep and bear arms” and what would “infringe” that right was totally circumscribed by the laws existing at the time of the founding? I get that the existence of a law at the time of the founding may be evidence that it was OK with the framers, but I don’t think it follows that all other regulation must be forbidden. I haven't seen this discussed, but it seems evident to me.
Great post. This is why originalism is a sham. If they were true to originalism, then the "right to bear arms" would apply ONLY if you are a member of a "well regulated militia" and for guns in use prior to 1790. Muskets are ok to own.
At a more basic level, does SCOTUS’s “history and tradition” 2nd amendment test even make sense? The test, taken on its own terms, doesn’t answer the questions it’s used to decide. Why, as a logical matter, should we think the “right to keep and bear arms” and what would “infringe” that right was totally circumscribed by the laws existing at the time of the founding? I get that the existence of a law at the time of the founding may be evidence that it was OK with the framers, but I don’t think it follows that all other regulation must be forbidden. I haven't seen this discussed, but it seems evident to me.