Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

In It to Win It

(8,360 posts)
Mon Feb 6, 2023, 04:25 PM Feb 2023

Another day, another federal law invalidated under Bruen's new test.

Jake Charles
@JacobDCharles

Another day, another federal law invalidated under Bruen's new test. & another straining to dismiss analogues. This time, it's the federal law prohibiting firearm possession during the time a person is an unlawful user of illegal drugs.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.okwd.118991/gov.uscourts.okwd.118991.36.0.pdf


Jake Charles
@JacobDCharles

Oh, look, here's the court dismissing what it calls a "trick" but which looks eerily like....analogical reasoning...




13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Another day, another federal law invalidated under Bruen's new test. (Original Post) In It to Win It Feb 2023 OP
What is the point being made here? Hugh_Lebowski Feb 2023 #1
Yeah, I don't underswtand it either. Ferrets are Cool Feb 2023 #2
We're apparently not in the inner circle Hugh_Lebowski Feb 2023 #3
Bruen is the new gun control standard from last year's USSC decision in New York NickB79 Feb 2023 #4
Geez Mad_Machine76 Feb 2023 #5
Constitutionally, Slavery would probably be an easier lift for these fucks, just saying (nt) Hugh_Lebowski Feb 2023 #9
Yes definitely Mad_Machine76 Feb 2023 #11
Thanks, I get it now :) (nt) Hugh_Lebowski Feb 2023 #8
Bruen is the new gun law case dpibel Feb 2023 #6
Thanks, I get it now :) Hugh_Lebowski Feb 2023 #7
Sounds like when Alito cited a 17th century British jurist Sogo Feb 2023 #10
Good Fla_Democrat Feb 2023 #12
The U.S. argued that he he's not part of "the people" because he's not a "law-abiding citizen". sl8 Feb 2023 #13
 

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)
1. What is the point being made here?
Mon Feb 6, 2023, 04:44 PM
Feb 2023

I understand the argument that the 1655 Virginia Law should not be applicable to 2023 cannabis users, but other than that ... I don't even know who/what 'Bruen' is

NickB79

(19,325 posts)
4. Bruen is the new gun control standard from last year's USSC decision in New York
Mon Feb 6, 2023, 05:01 PM
Feb 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

Basically, all gun laws must be looked at through a historical lens going forward, with an emphasis on what early American life was like in relation to modern gun laws. It was Clarence Thomas's personal theory made into national law.

With this ruling, for example, there were no laws in the 1700's outlawing gun ownership by those who used illegal drugs, because drugs weren't even illegal at the time. Therefore, you can't legally ban drug users from owning guns today.

And as much as I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, this new legal standard is FUCKING NUTS.

Mad_Machine76

(24,474 posts)
5. Geez
Mon Feb 6, 2023, 05:03 PM
Feb 2023

Why don't we just make witch burning legal again because, after all, it happened back in the 17th Century and there weren't any laws banning it?

dpibel

(2,923 posts)
6. Bruen is the new gun law case
Mon Feb 6, 2023, 05:04 PM
Feb 2023

The one where Clarence Thomas declared that you can only regulate guns in ways that they were regulated at or before the time the Constitution was written.

It's a bit odd, since it may reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. That is, it's a bit of a stretch to say that stoners should, per se, be prohibited from possessing firearms. So it was a shitty law, enacted in 1968, which is to say, prime hippie-bashing time.

But the case points out the facial absurdity of the current state of Second Amendment jurisprudence because, as this court reads it, Bruen means that if there was no prohibition against being stoned and armed in 1787, there can be no law against being stoned and armed ever.

Sogo

(5,046 posts)
10. Sounds like when Alito cited a 17th century British jurist
Mon Feb 6, 2023, 05:27 PM
Feb 2023

as the basis for outlawing abortion.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Another day, another fede...