Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 12,093
- Reactions
- 21,390
These are the some of the first interpretations of gun laws under the new Bruen legal landscape (Bonta and others will also be enlightening I think as was the Vanderstok 80% receivers ruling). This one is the US district court in Texas regarding the right to purchase a firearm when under indictment of a felony (Gomez).
The judge said Gov must prove gun law meets historical tradition otherwise it's unconstitutional. I do think most gun laws can be dismantled this way piece by piece. If historical tradition means the laws that existed in 1791, most gun laws on the books will not meet that criteria I would think. Interesting times we live in.
Here is the conclusion:
Here is the full text of the judges ruling:
Note that the gov did not make any arguments as to how it met historical tradition prior to 1938, therefore the judge did it himself. Critically he used 1791, when the second amendment was adopted, as the date.
This is huge because if the laws and tradition of 1791 becomes the standard by which federal judges Evaluate gun laws, guess what, most of those laws are going down!
The judge said Gov must prove gun law meets historical tradition otherwise it's unconstitutional. I do think most gun laws can be dismantled this way piece by piece. If historical tradition means the laws that existed in 1791, most gun laws on the books will not meet that criteria I would think. Interesting times we live in.
Here is the conclusion:
Here is the full text of the judges ruling:
Note that the gov did not make any arguments as to how it met historical tradition prior to 1938, therefore the judge did it himself. Critically he used 1791, when the second amendment was adopted, as the date.
This is huge because if the laws and tradition of 1791 becomes the standard by which federal judges Evaluate gun laws, guess what, most of those laws are going down!
Last Edited: