Another day, another federal law invalidated under Bruen's new test.

[In It to Win It]

Jake Charles
@JacobDCharles

Another day, another federal law invalidated under Bruen's new test. & another straining to dismiss analogues. This time, it's the federal law prohibiting firearm possession during the time a person is an unlawful user of illegal drugs.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.okwd.118991/gov.uscourts.okwd.118991.36.0.pdf

Jake Charles
@JacobDCharles

Oh, look, here's the court dismissing what it calls a "trick" but which looks eerily like....analogical reasoning...

Link to tweet

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. What is the point being made here?

I understand the argument that the 1655 Virginia Law should not be applicable to 2023 cannabis users, but other than that ... I don't even know who/what 'Bruen' is

[Ferrets are Cool]

2. Yeah, I don't underswtand it either.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. We're apparently not in the inner circle

[NickB79]

4. Bruen is the new gun control standard from last year's USSC decision in New York

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

Basically, all gun laws must be looked at through a historical lens going forward, with an emphasis on what early American life was like in relation to modern gun laws. It was Clarence Thomas's personal theory made into national law.

With this ruling, for example, there were no laws in the 1700's outlawing gun ownership by those who used illegal drugs, because drugs weren't even illegal at the time. Therefore, you can't legally ban drug users from owning guns today.

And as much as I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, this new legal standard is FUCKING NUTS.

[Mad_Machine76]

5. Geez

Why don't we just make witch burning legal again because, after all, it happened back in the 17th Century and there weren't any laws banning it?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

9. Constitutionally, Slavery would probably be an easier lift for these fucks, just saying (nt)

[Mad_Machine76]

11. Yes definitely

[Hugh_Lebowski]

8. Thanks, I get it now :) (nt)

[dpibel]

6. Bruen is the new gun law case

The one where Clarence Thomas declared that you can only regulate guns in ways that they were regulated at or before the time the Constitution was written.

It's a bit odd, since it may reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. That is, it's a bit of a stretch to say that stoners should, per se, be prohibited from possessing firearms. So it was a shitty law, enacted in 1968, which is to say, prime hippie-bashing time.

But the case points out the facial absurdity of the current state of Second Amendment jurisprudence because, as this court reads it, Bruen means that if there was no prohibition against being stoned and armed in 1787, there can be no law against being stoned and armed ever.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

7. Thanks, I get it now :)

[Sogo]

10. Sounds like when Alito cited a 17th century British jurist

as the basis for outlawing abortion.

[Fla_Democrat]

12. Good

[sl8]

13. The U.S. argued that he he's not part of "the people" because he's not a "law-abiding citizen".