this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
47 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10176 readers
19 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] willybe@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

This sounds like the trolly problem. If you go down track A, then there are likely to be some horrible family murders. Or track B you will upset the NRA crowd.

... Wow this Rahini guy does sound like a poster child for this law, but

ultimately the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is unconstitutional because there was nothing like it in the 1790s

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

When the supreme court shredded a New York gun control law last year (a law that had stood for a century), their reasoning was unless a gun regulation or something very similar to that regulation was already in place at the time the bill of rights was written, then it is not allowed based on their interpretation of the second ammendment. As the dissenting justices pointed out, this of course, is crazy, and if actually applied like how they said it would invalidate pretty much any gun control we still have that hasn't been taken away already. And isn't similar at all to how we look at standards for other things in the bill of rights.

So honestly the fifth circuit is probably correctly applying this reasoning here, and many gun laws are in court over this new standard. This was a standard created by the Supreme Court last year though, the fifth circuit didn't pull it out of their ass this time. But like any of this "originalist" nonsense they aren't gonna apply it consistently, just when it suits them. I would expect the supreme court to let this law stand this time to avoid yet another very unpopular decision highlighting their extremist second amendment interpretations, even though it doesn't live up to the ridiculous standard they created last year. Expect them to start applying that standard again capriciously at any time though.

[–] ArtZuron 7 points 1 year ago

Which is funny, since firearms were often very strictly controlled in many places throughout the 18th century and earlier. It's not that they aren't aware of gun control from the 1790s, it's that they don't actually care.

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Track B also opens up all manner of other 14A abuses, since this law involves no due process.

load more comments (4 replies)