Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Anticipated fallout from Bruen; all hail Clarence Thomas Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:51:27 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:51:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6319927542c2db0495365ee5de6f13b2"; logging-data="3437848"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/v2YkHbDw9FUZkPssn7rUlnKf34XmKOpo=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:UjZOGTzTExTLQep4j9grgBZkpcY= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 3503 Adam H. Kerman wrote: >Don't tell me Clarence Thomas isn't an activist judge. New York Rifle & >Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) was an activist opinion. Of course >New York had an unconstitutional state law, but this was a due process >case that shouldn't have been decided as a Second Amendment case. Thomas >found the statute unconstitutional with a sweeping, expansion of the >Second Amendment. If it wasn't illegal in era in which the Founders >wrote and passed the Second Amendment, then the gun regulation is >unconstitutional. Apparently all that remains to regulate is fugitive >slaves may not possess guns. . . . Wow. It seems that the Supreme Court has had second thoughts about the anticipated fallout from Bruen. United States v. Rahimi was decided 8-1 in favor of the government, so that's everyone else on the Court who had signed on to Thomas's opinion in Bruen except for Thomas himself. In Bruen, the constitutionality test of a law restricting guns is whether there was such a tradition at the time of the founding. The test was upheld in Rahimi, but modified with a new handwaiving "trapped in amber" substandard in Roberts' opinion, which means if we are confronted with the possibility of being dangerous assholes, the law may still be found unconstitutional. In 2020, a Texas court entered a protective order against Zachary Rahimi, who had dragged her girlfriend back to his vehicle, who hit her head on the dashboard as he forced her inside. He also fired his gun at a witness to their argument. Later, police suspected him of a series of shootings, obtained a warrant to search his home, then seized a rifle and a pistol. He was charged with violating federal law barring anyone with a restraining order from possessing a gun. The Fifth Circuit applied Bruen and found the law to be unconstitutional due to the government's failure historical law to allow the modern law to withstand 2nd Amendment scrutiny. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that there were historical laws restricting those who threatened others or who had misused firearms from continuing to possess them. Thomas disagreed that any of the historical laws were analogous, and said that someone who hasn't been charged nor convicted of a crime doesn't lose his Second Amendment rights. I hope it is absolutely clear as crystal when Roberts' "trapped in amber" substandard modifies the test in Bruen and when Thomas's objection applies. I simply love subjective legal tests in applying the constitution to the facts at hand and the constitutionality of a law.