Another Federal case decided in our favor.

[Worriedman]

Before the beatings begin, it must be noted that regardless of the morality of an issue used to restrict the ability to possess a firearm, under Bruen if it was not a qualifier in 1791, it is not one now...

The important words out of this caser are thus:

No longer should lower courts evaluating firearm restrictions “defer to the determinations of legislatures,” because while “that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not the deference that the Constitution demands.”  And while “end- justifies-the-means” rationalizations should generally be understood as antithetical to the rule of law, Bruen now leaves no doubt that such rationalizations have no place in our Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The question here is thus whether stripping someone of their right to possess a firearm solely because they use marijuana is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. If it is not, then § 922(g)(3) cannot be constitutionally applied to Harrison—no matter the reasonableness of the policy it embodies.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “‘the people’ . . . unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset,” further explaining that the term refers to “a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” The Court thus concluded that there is a “strong presumption” that the Second Amendment right to keep and carry handguns publicly for self-defense “belongs to all Americans.”

Because “[c]onstitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them,” historical analogues in existence near the time the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 are of primary relevance.

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Worriedman

[RED333]

About time the courts are see the 2nd as it was put to paper in 1791. Now I do not use marijuana but this new look into the laws is refreshing.

Thank you Worriedman

[Moped]

Bravo for the Federal Judicial system!!! This is the right ruling.  I hope it is appealed to SCOTUS, who rules the same way.  I've felt for a very long time, that marijuana should be treated just like alcohol and be made legal and then regulated just the same. Of course, our fearless leaders in DC, will fight like the devil to not see this happen, because it means money for law enforcement agencies across the country. This would affect the lifestyle of 10s of thousands of bureaucrats everywhere. And money is power in Washington.

Now if we could just get the judiciary to declare the Federal and State income tax system illegal!!!