But all is not lost. The Supreme Court has already backed away from the most absurd consequences of the Bruen standard. In U.S. v. Rahimi, an 8-1 majority greatly relaxed the “history and tradition” requirement to avoid leaving guns in the hands of domestic abusers.
Perhaps common sense will also prevail in the assault weapons cases. If so, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, ordinarily quite friendly to gun rights, has already shown the way.
In Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case, Kavanaugh authored a concurrence, opining that exceptions to constitutional rights can be expanded under “new circumstances” shaped by subsequent developments “largely unknown or unanticipated” at ratification.
Although he was thinking of “significant illegal immigration” and the advent of air travel, Kavanaugh’s “unanticipated” developments analysis also maps neatly onto gun regulations. The proliferation of semiautomatic weapons has had far greater consequences for public safety than air travel has had for 14th Amendment citizenship.
In Bruen, the majority reasoned that “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right.’” But neither should it be a super-right, to be interpreted under an entirely different body of rules from those applicable to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
If “new circumstances” may be sufficient to limit birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, the same principle should allow restrictions on firearms under the Second Amendment.
— Steven Lubet in Kavanaugh’s ‘new circumstances’ could pave a path to gun restrictions
“But all is not lost. The Supreme Court has already backed away from the most absurd consequences of the Bruen standard. In U.S. v. Rahimi, an 8-1 majority greatly relaxed the “history and tradition” requirement to avoid leaving guns in the hands of domestic abusers.”
This is false. They did not relax the “history and tradition” requirement “to avoid leaving guns in the hands of domestic abusers.” The Supreme Court ruled on June 21, 2024, that the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders is constitutional under the Second Amendment. In the decision Bruen was applied strictly, not relaxed and in the decision this “The Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen do not help Rahimi.” after arriving at a point consistent with Bruen. This is not ‘relaxed’ – it was very strictly applied and analyzed. Go peddle your lies elsewhere.
“If ‘new circumstances may be sufficient to limit birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, the same principle should allow restrictions on firearms under the Second Amendment.”
The 14th Amendment is not the Second Amendment dumba$$.
“In Bruen, the majority reasoned that ‘The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right.’ But neither should it be a super-right, to be interpreted under an entirely different body of rules from those applicable to the rest of the Bill of Rights.”
There was no “entirely different body of rules from those applicable to the rest of the Bill of Rights.” moron. Did ya not under stand the part “is not ‘a second-class right”? Prior Bruen the second amendment was treated to interest balancing and ‘just make it up to satisfy a state’ reasoning by left wing courts – in other words it was an entirely different set of rules applied to the second amendment than was applied to any other right by balancing in favor of the state rather than the people. The first 10 constitutional rights were clearly stated and enacted by the founding generation as belonging to the people and not government – there was no ‘interest balancing’ in favor of the state that was suppose to be applied just as there was no interest balancing suppose to be applied to all other rights. Bruen corrected that not only for the Second Amendment but for all rights by setting the criteria to be used to bring the Second up to par with the others, to bring it from its treatment as a second class right it was never suppose to be – the first 10 rights were clearly framed and intended as never belonging to the government, there was no right of the government (state or federal) to ‘interest balance’ that away, the ‘interest’ always intended to belong to the people and never to the government. In other words the principals for Bruen of text-history-tradition apply to the second now just like they have been applied to the others when those came before the court. There is no “super right” in the Second Amendment – its just a constitutional right now on par for consideration like the rest of them and no longer treated as a second class right.
If constitutional rights upset you so much I suggest you take your ignorant butt to another country.