Only Alito and Thomas are prepared to take Bruen to its absurd extreme.
The other seven Justices clearly seem prepared to walk back Bruen.
They clearly accepted that States may constitutionally disarm dangerous people and in fact, there was a defining moment at oral arguments when the Chief Justice asked counsel for the Defendant/Respondent Rahimi if Rahimi was a dangerous man, which counsel conceded.
That clearly leaves the door open to permanently disarming felons and misdemeanor domestic violence defendants as well as those under restraining orders or indictment for domestic violence and those under felony indictment.
Petitioner United States will clearly prevail. The devil will be in the details, which we won’t likely know for several months.
I actually support Justice Jackson, who would overturn Bruen in its entirety. UNLIKE Justice Jackson, I would replace it with a better standard for protecting the Second Amendment which does not lead to absurd results, like in the current case when it was at the Fifth Circuit.
Bruen is one of the biggest steaming piles the court has dropped in decades. I support a decision that protects the Second Amendment, but Thomas did so in the most full ass way possible. Fortunately, it appears Thomas will be in the dissent in this case, allowing the court to walk back some of the worst aspects of Bruen and find a better standard for protecting the Second Amendment.
That is common sense and a good thing but who determines who is “dangerous” is where the government overreach vs the 2nd has the potential to come into play? Give up an inch and will they then push for a mile? Once again it all boils down to risk/reward.
So if the constitution isn’t worded the way “society” currently thinks it should be…… the judicial branch just gets to decide on its own how they think it should be read?
But that is pretty much what Thomas did. He locked in a historical test that has proven completely unworkable.
I would have done it much differently.
I would stayed away from historical tests and instead establish objective requirements and a strict scrutiny standard.
I would have required States honor basic keep and bear arms, and allow for either open or concealed carry. I would have required that any regulations be subject to strict scrutiny.
In other words, I would actually adhere to the text of the Second Amendment.
Thomas’s approach is the free wheeling activist approach, and it has resulted in free wheeling activism, such as shutting long established laws regarding domestic abusers.
And I have the feeling that the Supreme Court will, to some degree, shift to my approach, which thoroughly protects the Second Amendment while not causing absurd outcomes.
There is zero reasons for post incarceration felons to be denied their right to bear arms
If states want to address domestic violence and gun possession do it through red flag laws. Though those are not a perfect solution either. Far from perfect in fact.
But you don’t see it. This is also part of the problem. “Long established laws regarding domestic abusers…” Could you point me to that line in the constitution? If it’s not there……amend it. That’s why the amendment process is there.
Not just: “well everyone agrees it makes sense so we can ignore what the constitution actually says.”
I’ll ask again. Where does the 2nd separate out “dangerous people”?
If it doesn’t. It’s unconstitutional. If properly passed I’d vote for an amendment that said people convicted of violent crimes don’t get their gun rights back unless certain criteria are met.
But the document currently doesn’t say that, and any hand waving about how necessary it is just proves my point that when the constitution needs changed there’s a process for it.
Let’s take away their right to vote too.
