U.S. Judge Stephen P. McGlynn in yesterday’s ruling striking down Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act ban on semi-auto firearms and standard capacity magazines . . .
In summation, the Supreme Court majorities in Heller and in Bruen explicitly rejected the following notions. First, they rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment did not go further than to protect citizens’ right to keep and bear arms for military or militia purposes. They also rejected the argument that the “people” identified in the Second Amendment referred only to the collective actions of individuals under a duty to serve in the militia. The Court also flatly rejected any notion that the term “bear arms” related only to military service or acting as a soldier. Additionally rejected was the notion that the only concern addressed by the Second Amendment was a fear of standing armies. Also rejected was any notion that the selfdefense interest advanced by the Second Amendment was nothing more than a “subsidiary interest.”
The majority decision in Bruen explicitly rejected the call to apply any form of means-ends scrutiny to Second Amendment challenges, thereby rejecting any notion that the Second Amendment must yield to a state’s “compelling interest,” even when such an interest can be demonstrated by compelling data. Justice Breyer’s argument that the complexity of firearm regulation reserves this issue only for legislatures’ discretion—without the possibility of judicial review—was also rejected. The fact that urban and rural communities suffer from gun violence in different ways or that different firearms pose different risks and serve different purposes was rejected as a justification for broadly insulating the legislature from extensive judicial review. The Bruen Court also rejected the argument that history alone would be both impractical for judges to utilize and incapable of providing definitive answers. Aside from means-ends scrutiny, the majority in Heller rejected an interest-balancing test that would have weighed the burden the Second Amendment against the government’s interest in enacting the law.
Finally, the Bruen dissent’s understanding of history was rejected as a justification for the public carry legislation at issue at issue in the case. English and colonial “going armed laws,” the Statute of Northampton, or colonial laws prohibiting the carrying of unlawful weapons were rejected as a justification for New York’s licensing regime. Similarly, founding-era laws that mirrored the Statute of Northampton were rejected as proper historical analogues to the New York law. Even concealed carry laws and surety laws from the 19th century failed to justify the law struck down in Bruen. Finally, postbellum regulation that went as far as to prohibit the carrying of firearms in public also could not stand as a justification for New York’s public carry law. The Supreme Court, in rejecting the dissent’s arguments, made clear that these regulations did not demonstrate a historical tradition of regulating firearms that would justify all modern legislation.
It is amazing/mind-boggling that some many supposedly learned people cannot/refuse to accept the simple English in which the 2nd Amendment is written. They cannot get over the fact that there is no “but” in the 2nd Amendment even tho there are a lot of “butts” trying to place a “but” therein.
Hush, agreed. And I would extend your observation to cover the First Amendment, also.
Life Savor, I do not have any disagreement with your comment.
Their disdain for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was in clear view.
The eight or nine Deep Blue states with similar laws knew fully well that the laws were Unconstitutional when they wrote them.
But they are banking on court delays to let the laws operate for several years before they are overturned.
My friend, Barley, argues that it would be relatively simple to build an AI engine that sweeps data from all gun-control court cases. All newly proposed gun-control legislation could be run through the AI engine to determine whether that legislation complied with SCOTUS decisions/precedent. Appropriate parameters would be required to provide impartial analysis.
Of course, Barley takes it a step further: any legislator guilty of proposing laws that fail this AI test should be sentenced sitting in a cell papered with Lizzo posters and with Taylor Swift tunes blaring 24×7.
I have stated many times that anyone who clearly violates their oath of office should be removed immediately.
.40 cal Bugger said it best: “what right to govern? you don’t have a right to govern. you have what ‘we the people’ allow you, you are not monarchs or rulers. you don’t get to have a ‘right to govern’, you are employees, you are servants of the people. there is no ‘right to govern’ in the Constitution, there is only existence of the government by the will of ‘We the People’ and you are servants to that will of ‘we the people’.”
Actually, you don’t need an AI engine to determine that “…shall not be infringed” was clearly upheld in Bruen and there is no analog for founding era gun laws because there weren’t any.
too bad, loyuh-assholes
I’m not giving much credit to McGlynn. He screwed up massively with his complete misunderstanding and reference to Heller and Bruen in regards to .50 caliber rifles and ammo. He bought into the Left’s terminology bastardization of the “in common use” test phrase. SCOTUS needs to spank him for that one.
Amen
they graduated from the obama school of obfuscation
It is time that those that enact this kind of legislation be charged with infringing peoples civil rights