User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/2/2022 11:28:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Fucking disgusting how hard it is to sleep upholding constitutional rights in accordance with the Supreme Court, eh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2022 11:29:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Hint: it's not a bluff
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2022 11:30:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The whole banning felons from firearms was based on Common Law, that seemed to have some carry over after ratifying the Bill of Rights. But there was not actual laws passed till way later. And it mostly dealt with treason. So I don't think banning felons from firearms will hold up. Agreed. And I’ll say that it will be an act of freedom for us to return gun ownership to the decent felons, of which there are many, who don’t own guns because they now walk the straight and narrow path. The bad felons already have guns… |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2022 11:31:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Bro has no idea how to be a judge. It’s not his job to win the governments case.
 Jesus fucking Christ. What a piece of shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2022 11:42:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They've got the presidency, they house and the senate. If they don't want the 2nd, why don't they just repeal it? Seems easy enough. Because it also take 3/4 of the state legislatures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 12:23:40 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Scratched out serial numbers? Find me a gun from the 1700's with serial numbers. Most any Tower Pattern Musket will have a serial number on it. Serial numbers are useful things and have been around since someone got the parts to two hand-fitted locks mixed up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 12:43:56 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It doesn't take a historian to know what the 2nd says and means. "I don't know, I'm not a biologist" now passes for Deep Thought on SCOTUS when it comes to defining a woman, so who's to say what the 2A really means? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 12:47:01 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Heck try pre-1968. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Scratched out serial numbers? Find me a gun from the 1700's with serial numbers. Heck try pre-1968. An unserialized Privately Made Firearm, built on the closest thing they had to a 3D printer in Colonial Williamsburg  Gunsmith of Williamsburg (1969) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 12:53:31 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Luger. Springfield serialized as early as 1865. European manufacturers may have been earlier. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Heck try pre-1968. Luger. Springfield serialized as early as 1865. European manufacturers may have been earlier. Right, most manufacturers were voluntarily putting serial numbers on everything well before 1968 because there are many valid free market reasons to do so ranging from inventory tracking to invoicing to warranty servicing. I have seen lots of guns made between 1900 and 1968 over the years and I can only think of a very few that didn't have factory serial numbers (Garands, Carbines, 1911's for example). That said, just because they were there doesn't mean the federal law forcing them to be there should hold up to scrutiny because there is no real legal basis for it being compulsory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 12:55:03 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Luger. Springfield serialized as early as 1865. European manufacturers may have been earlier. Not required by law. @Deerhurst |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 1:14:09 AM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 1:16:15 AM EDT
[#12]
Historians would make better Supreme Court Justices than elite law school lawyers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 1:43:36 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bellesiles turned a prestigious history award into wallpaper. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/federal-judge-clarence-thomas-gun-rights-originalism.html Slate whines about Bruen and how hard it is for judges to do their jobs now: Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable. In each case, both sides presented a few scraps of historical evidence to support their positions. Judges based their decisions on those scraps without further research, following Thomas’ suggestion that they rely on “the historical record compiled by the parties.” Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution. At worst, it will demonstrate the absurdity and impossibility of Thomas’ command. At best, it will restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is going completely off the rails. -- In principle it seems reasonable, what'll happen in practice is judges will hire historians with the same political biases, Michael A. Bellesiles is probably looking for a paycheck. Bellesiles turned a prestigious history award into wallpaper. That episode clearly showed how peer reviews are worthless when gun control is the topic. Everyone assumed peer review meant some independent checking of results would be done. Instead it was a rubberstamping of positions the reviewers agreed with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 1:56:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe he shouldn't have made up his own data, then refused access for others for examining and verifying it. Was 1619 Project-ing before the 1619 Project. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/federal-judge-clarence-thomas-gun-rights-originalism.html Slate whines about Bruen and how hard it is for judges to do their jobs now: Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable. In each case, both sides presented a few scraps of historical evidence to support their positions. Judges based their decisions on those scraps without further research, following Thomas’ suggestion that they rely on “the historical record compiled by the parties.” Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution. At worst, it will demonstrate the absurdity and impossibility of Thomas’ command. At best, it will restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is going completely off the rails. -- In principle it seems reasonable, what'll happen in practice is judges will hire historians with the same political biases, Michael A. Bellesiles is probably looking for a paycheck. Bellesiles turned a prestigious history award into wallpaper. Maybe he shouldn't have made up his own data, then refused access for others for examining and verifying it. Was 1619 Project-ing before the 1619 Project. People focus on Bellesiles, when the bigger scandal is how he received the awards. His work didn't receive any critical review because the people responsible for the awards and peer review agreed with his falsified results. The whole peer review system is worthless when gun control is the topic. It took Clayton Cramer to notice inconsistencies in the work, and he dove in, exposing the fraud. Only after it was obvious the Bellesiles work was fraudulent the people responsible for the Bancroft award did any serious review of the work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 2:00:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Luger. Springfield serialized as early as 1865. European manufacturers may have been earlier. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Heck try pre-1968. Luger. Springfield serialized as early as 1865. European manufacturers may have been earlier. Voluntary serialization is ok, it helps manufacturers with warranty work. Government mandated serial numbers are recent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 2:05:18 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The whole banning felons from firearms was based on Common Law, that seemed to have some carry over after ratifying the Bill of Rights. But there was not actual laws passed till way later. And it mostly dealt with treason. So I don't think banning felons from firearms will hold up. It will be difficult to support the lifetime ban for felons. It is a huge over simplification, but if the locals didn't think someone was safe to have a weapon, they were either killed or banished. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 2:36:36 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Motherfuckers. Keep pushing and you will get a ruling that says, "Shall not be infringed means no restrictions whatsoever, go fuck yourself."  They already have. And they don't give a fuck. Find me ONE fucking leftist or their libtarded lemming who still believes in the rule of law. They just DGAF. And they're relying on the rights continued blind allegiance to unconstitutional shackles. I guess we'll find out how many center-right are willing to go all the way down with the ship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 2:54:29 AM EDT
[#18]
All the rest of the amendments in the bill of rights were wrote by rich, white, racist men. What about them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 2:59:23 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The whole banning felons from firearms was based on Common Law, that seemed to have some carry over after ratifying the Bill of Rights. But there was not actual laws passed till way later. And it mostly dealt with treason. So I don't think banning felons from firearms will hold up. Of course it can't ban firearms from felons, to do so would have been pretty much instant death back in those days..An unarmed man did not survive very long...The felons who committed serious felonies might have been banned from weapons, but doubtful they would have been released from prison to begin with...so a mute point... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:02:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most any Tower Pattern Musket will have a serial number on it. Serial numbers are useful things and have been around since someone got the parts to two hand-fitted locks mixed up. Perhaps. But owners of lawfully purchased private property should be able to alter it at will, including serial numbers and rate of fire. Maybe if the "right to repair" automobile controversy goes in the favor of consumers, some legal precedent might be set that people can modify their own property as they see fit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:27:32 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't believe that Thomas was bluffing. I agree, only problem is the SCOTUS has no way to enforce shit. They need federal agencies to do their job ensuring peoples civil liberties, but they do just the opposite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:28:13 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fucking disgusting how hard it is to sleep upholding constitutional rights in accordance with the Supreme Court, eh? In their mind they are. Who didn't see shit like this happening? Really "Bruen is gonna reverse all gun laws and make the ATF disappear " lol no |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:40:44 AM EDT
[#23]
Seems like the rest of judiciary is well enough educated to figure this one out. Sorry he doesn't appear to be as qualified.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:17:59 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/federal-judge-clarence-thomas-gun-rights-originalism.html Slate whines about Bruen and how hard it is for judges to do their jobs now: Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for "historical analogues" from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen's maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable. In each case, both sides presented a few scraps of historical evidence to support their positions. Judges based their decisions on those scraps without further research, following Thomas' suggestion that they rely on "the historical record compiled by the parties." Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him "identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions" to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution. At worst, it will demonstrate the absurdity and impossibility of Thomas' command. At best, it will restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is going completely off the rails. -- In principle it seems reasonable, what'll happen in practice is judges will hire historians with the same political biases, Michael A. Bellesiles is probably looking for a paycheck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:58:46 AM EDT
[#25]
Whoever wrote that should get fucked with a semi truck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 7:58:16 AM EDT
[#26]
Gun control is Jim Crow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:00:27 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People focus on Bellesiles, when the bigger scandal is how he received the awards. His work didn't receive any critical review because the people responsible for the awards and peer review agreed with his falsified results. The whole peer review system is worthless when gun control is the topic. It took Clayton Cramer to notice inconsistencies in the work, and he dove in, exposing the fraud. Only after it was obvious the Bellesiles work was fraudulent the people responsible for the Bancroft award did any serious review of the work. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/federal-judge-clarence-thomas-gun-rights-originalism.html Slate whines about Bruen and how hard it is for judges to do their jobs now: Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable. In each case, both sides presented a few scraps of historical evidence to support their positions. Judges based their decisions on those scraps without further research, following Thomas’ suggestion that they rely on “the historical record compiled by the parties.” Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution. At worst, it will demonstrate the absurdity and impossibility of Thomas’ command. At best, it will restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is going completely off the rails. -- In principle it seems reasonable, what'll happen in practice is judges will hire historians with the same political biases, Michael A. Bellesiles is probably looking for a paycheck. Bellesiles turned a prestigious history award into wallpaper. Maybe he shouldn't have made up his own data, then refused access for others for examining and verifying it. Was 1619 Project-ing before the 1619 Project. People focus on Bellesiles, when the bigger scandal is how he received the awards. His work didn't receive any critical review because the people responsible for the awards and peer review agreed with his falsified results. The whole peer review system is worthless when gun control is the topic. It took Clayton Cramer to notice inconsistencies in the work, and he dove in, exposing the fraud. Only after it was obvious the Bellesiles work was fraudulent the people responsible for the Bancroft award did any serious review of the work. The whole peer review thingy is shot. Bunch of egg-heads citing each other to give mutual credit and legitimacy. Guess they wanted to believe. Just took it at face value. I enjoy the James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose stuff on peer-review. Beautiful. Lesbian Glaciology Penises cause Climate Change |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:02:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That episode clearly showed how peer reviews are worthless when gun control is the topic. Everyone assumed peer review meant some independent checking of results would be done. Instead it was a rubberstamping of positions the reviewers agreed with. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/federal-judge-clarence-thomas-gun-rights-originalism.html Slate whines about Bruen and how hard it is for judges to do their jobs now: Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable. In each case, both sides presented a few scraps of historical evidence to support their positions. Judges based their decisions on those scraps without further research, following Thomas’ suggestion that they rely on “the historical record compiled by the parties.” Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution. At worst, it will demonstrate the absurdity and impossibility of Thomas’ command. At best, it will restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is going completely off the rails. -- In principle it seems reasonable, what'll happen in practice is judges will hire historians with the same political biases, Michael A. Bellesiles is probably looking for a paycheck. Bellesiles turned a prestigious history award into wallpaper. That episode clearly showed how peer reviews are worthless when gun control is the topic. Everyone assumed peer review meant some independent checking of results would be done. Instead it was a rubberstamping of positions the reviewers agreed with. It's supposed to be fellow subject matter experts keeping each other honest. Took a hike a while back. Leftists and subjective truths. THey should all have to move to France when caught BSing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:03:01 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They've got the presidency, they house and the senate. If they don't want the 2nd, why don't they just repeal it? Seems easy enough. NVM. Beat like the poster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:03:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Heck try pre-1968. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Scratched out serial numbers? Find me a gun from the 1700's with serial numbers. Heck try pre-1968. Exactly. Pre-68 it was very common for firearms to be unserialized. Some manufacturers would for internal quality control purposes, but there was no expectation of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:08:03 AM EDT
[#31]
Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. Almost all of the lawyers I know were history majors before going to law school. Is that just an anomaly? I personally don’t think so, but admittedly I have not done any research into lawyer/judge undergrad studies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:10:06 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/federal-judge-clarence-thomas-gun-rights-originalism.html Slate whines about Bruen and how hard it is for judges to do their jobs now: Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable. In each case, both sides presented a few scraps of historical evidence to support their positions. Judges based their decisions on those scraps without further research, following Thomas’ suggestion that they rely on “the historical record compiled by the parties.” Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution. At worst, it will demonstrate the absurdity and impossibility of Thomas’ command. At best, it will restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is going completely off the rails. -- In principle it seems reasonable, what'll happen in practice is judges will hire historians with the same political biases, Michael A. Bellesiles is probably looking for a paycheck. I mean, tons of historical facts on the issue have been presented before the courts. No need for a historian, just look at the recent cases and see what they cited. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:10:28 AM EDT
[#33]
Judges tend to be lawyers that sucked at that job and went looking for one that had a steady paycheck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:27:27 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Luger. Springfield serialized as early as 1865. European manufacturers may have been earlier. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Heck try pre-1968. Luger. Springfield serialized as early as 1865. European manufacturers may have been earlier. Manufacturing and contract records. Not government requirements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:28:56 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Scratched out serial numbers? Find me a gun from the 1700's with serial numbers. I have one. It was converted from flintlock to percussion cap sometime in the 1870’s. Family legend says it shot at a few redcoats way back in the day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:32:43 AM EDT
[#36]
What this country needs is a bunch more law abiding citizens.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:34:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Historically people that committed violent felonies were killed by the local population or their judicial system. People that were not executed were often branded on the face for life so you could instantly determine that someone was a criminal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:42:10 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The lawyers are responsible the research, not the judge More specifically, the state’s lawyers have the burden. They must show historical context for the infringement. I guess it then becomes a battle of experts. One day, the GCA and NFA will be on the chopping block and we will all learn what we already knew - it was BS made up whole cloth in the wake of prohibition and has no historical analogue. A Sears catalogue alone would prove the ongoing availability of machine guns, etc…before the feds decided that the plebes were too stupid to be trusted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:43:43 AM EDT
[#39]
I don't think I would want to call Thomas' bluff. In my case, I'm pretty sure we are not even in the same realm of intelligence. Then again, probably 99.9% of liberal judges aren't either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 8:59:07 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Srsly? A good paralegal could find everything they need six layers deep in one afternoon with a long coffee break. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/federal-judge-clarence-thomas-gun-rights-originalism.html Slate whines about Bruen and how hard it is for judges to do their jobs now: Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for "historical analogues" from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen's maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable. In each case, both sides presented a few scraps of historical evidence to support their positions. Judges based their decisions on those scraps without further research, following Thomas' suggestion that they rely on "the historical record compiled by the parties." Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him "identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions" to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution. At worst, it will demonstrate the absurdity and impossibility of Thomas' command. At best, it will restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is going completely off the rails. -- In principle it seems reasonable, what'll happen in practice is judges will hire historians with the same political biases, Michael A. Bellesiles is probably looking for a paycheck. If it takes more effort than that it wont even be a viable historical reference anyways. A viable law must have withheld constitutional scrutiny at the time, not just existed or even be enforced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 9:12:04 AM EDT
[#41]
“finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable.”
Deliciously GOOD |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 9:15:40 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It doesn't take a historian to know what the 2nd says and means. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 9:36:32 AM EDT
[#43]
Well the British tried to limit us, and we won because we said fuck off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 9:51:50 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most any Tower Pattern Musket will have a serial number on it. Serial numbers are useful things and have been around since someone got the parts to two hand-fitted locks mixed up. Sure. I have guns from the early 1900's with serial numbers and they existed before then. But they're the exception, not the rule. And that was my point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 9:52:35 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe if the "right to repair" automobile controversy goes in the favor of consumers, some legal precedent might be set that people can modify their own property as they see fit. Ooh. Me likey. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 9:53:24 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What this country needs is a bunch more law abiding citizens. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 9:54:17 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks just ordered the leather bound edition of her book on Amazon. Pricey, but it seems like a quintessential addition to the library. My cheap self just bought the paperback. It'll get worked into the kids' school curriculum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 12:09:53 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My cheap self just bought the paperback. It'll get worked into the kids' school curriculum. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Thanks just ordered the leather bound edition of her book on Amazon. Pricey, but it seems like a quintessential addition to the library. My cheap self just bought the paperback. It'll get worked into the kids' school curriculum. I need to buy her books. I've read so much of her work over the years, but only in smaller works and snippets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 1:03:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/federal-judge-clarence-thomas-gun-rights-originalism.html Slate whines about Bruen and how hard it is for judges to do their jobs now: Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable. In each case, both sides presented a few scraps of historical evidence to support their positions. Judges based their decisions on those scraps without further research, following Thomas’ suggestion that they rely on “the historical record compiled by the parties.” Last Thursday, Judge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi charted a different course: He proposed appointing a historian to help him “identify and sift through authoritative sources on founding-era firearms restrictions” to decide the constitutionality of a federal law barring felons from possessing firearms. His proposal is the first positive development in Second Amendment law since the Bruen revolution. At worst, it will demonstrate the absurdity and impossibility of Thomas’ command. At best, it will restore sanity to an area of jurisprudence that is going completely off the rails. -- In principle it seems reasonable, what'll happen in practice is judges will hire historians with the same political biases, Michael A. Bellesiles is probably looking for a paycheck. Translation: " |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 1:07:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Apparently judges aren't biologists, and they aren't historians either.
Mind... blown. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File