|
The Wolford decision has some very favorable language.
From page 7 of the opinion:
That analysis, we held, involves two steps. First, a court
must determine whether the law before it clashes with the
“plain text” of the Amendment’s language. Id., at 24. This
inquiry entails three subsidiary questions. First, does the
law apply to “the people”—which is to say, to “all members
of the political community”? Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. Sec-
ond, does it concern any form of “Arms,” i.e., any weapon
customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes? See
id., at 584. Third, does the law place any restrictions on
either the “keep[ing]” (i.e., possession) or the “bear[ing]”
(i.e., carrying) of arms? See Bruen, 597 U. S., at 32–33
This one word: “concern”, will have a huge impact, as it forecloses many shenanigans at the first step of the two-step Bruen test.
On page 2 of Barrett’s concurrence, footnote 1:
1 The principal dissent erroneously claims that this division leaves
judges “free to insert any meaning they desire into the text of the Second
Amendment.” Post, at 17 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). No one disputes that
the Second Amendment’s text has a fixed meaning that must be satisfied
before a law is deemed presumptively unconstitutional. See ante, at 7
(identifying “three subsidiary questions” that must be answered at
Bruen’s first step). The disagreement is instead whether courts can
smuggle additional limits, drawn from our regulatory tradition, into the
plain-text stage of the inquiry. The answer is and always has been no.
This further slams the door on step one shenanigans.
To make matters even better…
On page 18 of Jackson’s dissent:
Worse, the majority’s new methodology is a one-way
ratchet: It inevitably works only to the benefit of armed
carry by removing any real burden of proof on gun owners
at step one. The majority simply equates the ability to carry
a gun with the right to carry anywhere and everywhere.
Ante, at 14. Because of that, it then assumes that any im-
pediment to carrying qualifies as a burden on the right.
Ante, at 14, 16.
EXACTLY!!
Jackson perfectly clarifies the majority’s position, her dissent being that she doesn’t like the result.
Two AR-15 ban cases have been consolidated and granted cert.
The remaining magazine ban cases have been held over, probably to be GVR’d after a decision on the AR-15 ban cases have been decided.
It is beautiful what SCOTUS has done.
First, the court has taken away every way of arguing in support of gun bans
Then, SCOTUS is forcing the states to defend their bans without any way to defend them.
Effectively, they have “disarmed” the gun grabbers and forced them to fight.
Poetic justice.
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)
|
Linear Mode
