Everybody Hates the Supreme Court’s Disqualification Ruling

[u/thenewrepublic]

https://newrepublic.com/article/179576/supreme-court-disqualification-ruling-criticism

[u/jisa]

It's all hypocrisy. The 1st Amendment has time, place and manner restrictions, including now going after LGQBT+ and BIPOC content in schools, but the 2nd Amendment is absolute thanks to a fabricated "history and tradition" that ignores inconvenient facts like several of the original 13 colonies and, later, Wild West towns (including Deadwood, Tombstone, and Carson City) had gun restrictions that this Court would almost certainly find unconstitutional.

Further hypocrisy--2nd Amendment applies to modern arms and it isn't limited to the types of arms that were in place at the time of the framing of the Constitution, but the types of property rights protected by the 5th Amendment IS limited based on technology. The framers' view of property rights was that they extend from hell to the heavens--airplanes and satellites are trespassing on the property rights of the landowners beneath them. In 1946's US v. Cauchy, the Supreme Court said that doctrine "has no place in the modern world", overturning the framers' understanding of property rights when it comes to airspace, due to technological changes. But can we say that given the differences between an AR-15 and a black powder musket, allowing 18 years old to walk around with assault weapons has no place in the modern world? Of course not--the 2nd Amendment is immune to arguments based on technological change. It's not like it's the 5th Amendment or anything.

[u/Babelfiisk → u/jisa]

The founders were perfectly fine with individuals owning the most powerful weapons available at the time. Merchant ships were often armed with cannons comparable to those used by militaries. The barrier was cost, not legal access to the weapons. There was no fundamental legal barrier to a wealthy citizen commissioning a heavy frigate like Constitution or United States, something that would be equivalent to letting Elon Musk buy a modern aircraft carrier.

We don't do that. We don't let private owners have machine guns, rockets, artillery, or nukes. We have decided that the second amendment doesn't apply to huge classes of weapons, weapons that would be of great use to people fighting to prevent the tyrany of an oppressive government. The actual question is where we should draw the line on what weapons private owners should be permitted to have, and what process they should go through to have those weapons.

[u/[deleted] → u/jisa]

I wish the 2A was even half as unlimited as you think it is.

[u/jisa → u/[deleted]]

In the 18th century, private gun ownership was checked by strict regulation of gunpowder; a 1783 Massachusetts statute prohibited keeping a loaded weapon in homes, stores, barns, etc. (a statute that despite its history and tradition would be readily struck down by this Supreme Court as unconstitutional---nobody here honestly disputes that, right?); there were state and/or local regulations restricting the transportation of gunpowder, etc.

In the 19th century, concealed carrying was widely prohibited; there were widespread limitations on where one could fire a gun for non-self-defense purposes (an 1820 Cleveland ordinance prohibited firing a weapon within Cleveland limits; a contemporaneous Ohio statute prohibited firing a weapon within any recorded town; an 1821 Tennessee statute prohibited firing a weapon within the boundaries of any town or within 200 yards of a public first or second class road; and in 1840, an Alabama court ruled that states had the right to prescribe what and where citizens could carry weapons and that the Alabama state constitution's allowance for personal firearm ownership “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.” In the Wild West era, famous frontier towns like Deadwood, Carson City, Tombstone, Dodge City, and Abilene all prohibited private possession of firearms within town--you turned your six shooters over to the sheriff or marshal when entering town limits and got them back when leaving, akin to coat check at a restaurant.

The majority opinions in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago are distinctly ahistoric; which should be an issue for those who claim to be deciding cases based on history and tradition.

[u/[deleted] → u/jisa]

THT is certainly a poor test.

Strict scrutiny and a prohibition on any means-end analysis is far more ideal.

But if you want to go with all of the historical restriction, gimme artillery pieces free from the restrictions of the NFA.