A federal judge for the second time overturned California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.
Just a question, why the hell does something need “historical basis” for it to be legal/illegal?
Because that’s what the supreme court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
They just made that up, but that’s where we’re at now.
deleted by creator
This is so absolutely idiotic that it can only be muricaland politics.
deleted by creator
I mean i personally don’t care about the law itself but that mental gymnastics would send someone to the Closed Mental health clinic…
The Bruen test is based on three things text, history, and tradition. When evaluating a law that implicates the 2A under it you compare the law to the original intent of the amendment. This intent is found by first reading the text, analyzing historical basis (specifically the founding period till the 1860s), and looking to historical traditions.
Since the Constitution is the highest law of the land it supercedes all lower laws, making any contrary lower law unlawful.
Basically the reasoning behind this kind of test to ensure that protections aren’t stripped by redefining or reinterpreting phrases.
For an example of how that might look in a different context here’s a snippet of the 1A “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Someone 50 years from now could read that an conclude (wrongly) the right to petition the government is a collective right and not something held by each individual. Under a Bruen style test courts must not use that new understanding but the original one intended by it’s writers.
To be honest, we need a community for uplifting libertarian news… Maybe it’s just my negativity bias, but there’s just too much news about this world going to shit.
deleted by creator
Not really. His conclusion is good, but his process is so deeply flawed that if allowed to set precedent our judicial system will manage to get even worse.
What parts of his process do you disagree with?
I would say that the following is the main point of issue:
[…] ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.
Deciding on laws based on tradition, and historical context has potential to be quite damaging – these decisions should be made based on principle.
Well then I regret to inform you that he wasn’t setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen. The precedent already exists on a national scale.
[…] he wasn’t setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen.
Indeed. It is rather unfortunate.
