“By that standard [created in Bruen], every gun regulation must involve historians whose research and analysis must be evaluated by the Court. While U.S. v. Rahimi vindicates historians, it also underscores the limitations of the ‘history-and-tradition’ rule that Bruen created.” Writing at Washington Monthly, @earlymodjustice and Laura Edwards explain the good and bad news that comes from the Supreme Court’s recent attention to historians. #scotus #legalhistory #histodons https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/06/23/the-supreme-court-keeps-misfiring-on-guns/
@jmadelman what that quote is missing is that we are free to change the law, we just have to go through the democratic process to do it.
It's not that every gun regulation must involve historians. It's that historians help us understand the history of laws written in history.
We can write new laws and then we won't need historians. They'll be modern laws. But so long as we keep reelecting the same politicians who aren't interested in updating the laws, were left looking to history.
You're missing that the Supreme Court was applying law that we're free to change.
If we don't like the 2nd Amendment we're free to amend it and change it should the country want to.
@volkris @jmadelman
Nope. The Supreme Court invalidated most gun regulations across the country with Bruen two years ago—some of them in place for a hundred years and more. That’s why we wrote what we did.