- Messages
- 4,002
- Reactions
- 11,408
Great but long article in the Federalist Society discussing the inherent inconsistency with Bruen and that future 2a cases may not be decided solely on the basis of "text, history, tradition."
The glaring problem with Bruen is that there is no relevant text, history, or tradition in 1791 that supports the notion of needing to obtain a permit to exercise one's right to bear arms.
The glaring problem with Bruen is that there is no relevant text, history, or tradition in 1791 that supports the notion of needing to obtain a permit to exercise one's right to bear arms.
The most obvious reason for skepticism is that the Bruen opinion itself does not consistently apply its own stated test. Just as Heller issued ipse dixits endorsing several forms of gun control without any evidence of their historical pedigree, Bruen emphasizes that nothing in the Court's opinion should be interpreted even to suggest the unconstitutionality of the "shall-issue" licensing regimes adopted by 43 states. These regimes typically impose conditions for obtaining a carry license that most law-abiding citizens can meet, such as passing a background check and taking a handgun safety class. Bruen notes the obvious fact that these regulations impose a much smaller burden on the right to bear arms than New York's highly restrictive statute. But the Court does not provide so much as a shred of evidence that any kind of licensing requirements had ever been imposed on the general population before the 20th century.