Turmoil in courts on gun laws in wake of justices' ruling

[sl8]

https://apnews.com/article/politics-mississippi-state-government-delaware-california-massachusetts-3983cecfd1107c263d5309ec0d80a966

Turmoil in courts on gun laws in wake of justices’ ruling

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and LINDSAY WHITEHURST
yesterday

WASHINGTON (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment is upending gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books.

The high court’s ruling that set new standards for evaluating gun laws left open many questions, experts say, resulting in an increasing number of conflicting decisions as lower court judges struggle to figure out how to apply it.

The Supreme Court’s so-called Bruen decision changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions. Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the justices said.

Under the Supreme Court’s new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

[...]

[J_William_Ryan]

1. "Turmoil in courts"

Which was Thomas’ intent.

Unhappy with the slow pace of the evolution of Second Amendment jurisprudence, the ‘historical tradition’ test is designed to cause conflict and dissent among the lower courts and eventually the appellate courts.

The appellate courts in disagreement all but guarantees a case makes it before the Supreme Court, state assault weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions in particular, where they’ll be struck down.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

2. Historic tradition of Gun regulation began with old West town sheriffs banning them! Entirely!

Seems obvious: follow that tradition!

[yagotme]

4. May as well follow up with banning drugs and alcohol.

Those edicts went well...

[f_townsend]

6. Yet another phony "gun control banning all guns" misreprentation n/t

[Alexander Of Assyria]

8. Gunners have killed logic, it's sad and amusing.

[yagotme]

10. Not sure if you read post #2 completely.

Poster IS calling for total gun ban.

[KS Toronado]

7. Like your idea "Seems obvious: follow that tradition! "

Although we know that will never happen.

[70sEraVet]

3. The interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment should evolve at least as fast as

the killing capacity of the guns have evolved.

[melm00se]

5. This article might be of interest to some

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3523&context=faculty_scholarship

"An historical approach to constitutional interpretation draws upon original intentions or
understandings of the meaning or application of a constitutional provision. Comparing
the ways in which courts in different jurisdictions use history is a complex exercise. In
recent years, academic and judicial discussion of “originalism” has obscured both the
global prevalence of resorting to historical materials as an interpretive resource and the
impressive diversity of approaches courts may take to deploying those materials."

[The Mouth]

9. It's pretty clear from the SCOTUS decision

Any state, county, or city *must* have an explicit and legitimate reason to deny any particular individual a license.

"We don't issue without a good reason" doesn't work anymore.

No more 'only ex-cops and buddies of the sheriff, and celebs'.

If you aren't a felon, and there is no restraining order on you, any prohibition - or unreasonable cost- is unconstitutional.

The states and cities can try to get around this, but all they are going to do is waste taxpayer's money.


You can't charge someone to exercise a Constitutional right. Making it harder to get a permit than it is to vote is going to result in a losing lawsuit, every time.

[f_townsend]

11. Where, in any SCOTUS ruling

has it been deemed "unconstitutional" to deny a handgun permit for reasons other than being a felon or having a restraining order?

There has been no such SCOTUS ruling. The public has a right not to fear being shot to death in a store or a parking lot by a randomly-encountered angry/stupid person who is exercising a newly-fabricated "right" to own and carry a handgun in public. And the states have the right -- and the responsibility -- to protect state residents from said psychos.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

12. Welcome back.

[f_townsend]

13. I just recently joined, but thank you n/t

[yagotme]

14. Welcome to DU!

(Forgot welcome on above post. Sorry!!)