{"id":14965,"date":"2024-10-07T16:00:53","date_gmt":"2024-10-07T16:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=14965"},"modified":"2024-10-07T16:00:53","modified_gmt":"2024-10-07T16:00:53","slug":"a-trump-judge-ruled-theres-a-second-amendment-right-to-own-machine-guns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=14965","title":{"rendered":"A Trump judge ruled there\u2019s a Second Amendment right to own machine guns"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“The \u201chistorical tradition\u201d test announced in Bruen<\/em> has no real substance, cannot be applied consistently by lower court judges, and has led to absurd and immoral results. Just last June, for example, the Supreme Court had to intervene after an appeals court, in a perfectly honest application of the Bruen<\/em> decision, ruled that people subject to domestic violence restraining orders<\/a> have a constitutional right to own a gun.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, while the Court\u2019s decision in that case, United States v. Rahimi<\/em><\/a>, reversed one of the federal judiciary\u2019s most astonishing post-Bruen<\/em> decisions, it left Bruen\u2019<\/em>s confounding historical test in place. Under Rahimi<\/em>, \u201ca court must ascertain whether the new law is \u2018relevantly similar\u2019 to laws that our tradition is understood to permit\u201d \u2014 whatever the hell that means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a separate concurring opinion in Rahimi<\/em>, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson quoted a dozen lower court opinions complaining that judges can\u2019t figure out how Bruen<\/em> is supposed to work. As one of those opinions stated, \u201ccourts, operating in good faith, are struggling at every stage of the Bruen<\/em> inquiry<\/a>. Those struggles encompass numerous, often dispositive, difficult questions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This chaos is likely to continue until Bruen<\/em> is overruled. The history and tradition test announced in the case provides lower court judges with no meaningful guidance on which gun laws are constitutional. And Bruen<\/em> allows judges who are determined to reach pro-gun conclusions no matter what the consequences to strike down virtually any gun law \u2014 which may explain Broomes\u2019s decision in the Morgan<\/em> case.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/scotus\/368616\/supreme-court-second-amendment-machine-guns-bruen-broomes<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The \u201chistorical tradition\u201d test announced in Bruen has no real substance, cannot be applied consistently by lower court judges, and has led to absurd and immoral results. Just last June, for example, the Supreme Court had to intervene after an appeals court, in a perfectly honest application of the Bruen decision, ruled that people subject to domestic violence restraining orders have a constitutional right to own a gun.
\nBut, while the Court\u2019s decision in that case, United States v. Rahimi, reversed one of the federal judiciary\u2019s most astonishing post-Bruen decisions, it left Bruen\u2019s confounding historical test in place. Under Rahimi, \u201ca court must ascertain whether the new law is \u2018relevantly similar\u2019 to laws that our tradition is understood to permit\u201d \u2014 whatever the hell that means.<\/p>\n

In a separate concurring opinion in Rahimi, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson quoted a dozen lower court opinions complaining that judges can\u2019t figure out how Bruen is supposed to work. As one of those opinions stated, \u201ccourts, operating in good faith, are struggling at every stage of the Bruen inquiry. Those struggles encompass numerous, often dispositive, difficult questions.\u201d<\/p>\n

This chaos is likely to continue until Bruen is overruled. The history and tradition test announced in the case provides lower court judges with no meaningful guidance on which gun laws are constitutional. And Bruen allows judges who are determined to reach pro-gun conclusions no matter what the consequences to strike down virtually any gun law \u2014 which may explain Broomes\u2019s decision in the Morgan case.”<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/scotus\/368616\/supreme-court-second-amendment-machine-guns-bruen-broomes<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[429,790,221,110,109,332,1489,1213,470,170],"class_list":["post-14965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-constitution","tag-courts","tag-donald-trump","tag-firearms","tag-guns","tag-judge","tag-judges","tag-judiciary","tag-second-amendment","tag-trump"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14965","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14965"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14965\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14966,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14965\/revisions\/14966"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}