Did Kavanuagh give the courts a backdoor to sidestep Bruen?

[Saltwater60]

I have not heard this anywhere else but the conservative justices need to learn to stay in their lane and not help the lefties so much. The left routine attacks them even though they side with them on a regular basis and when will they learn this will not give them favor.
I agree with the author and we have talked about some of the things here that they are allowing as gun control wasn’t around back then so maybe they could push through more gun control on that basis? Is this what the second circuit will use to screw us? It will be interesting to see in a month and a half what the arguments are.

Brett Kavanaugh May Have Quietly Sabotaged Clarence Thomas’ Extreme Gun Ruling

Don’t assume the Supreme Court will uphold recent decisions vastly expanding the Second Amendment.

slate.com

 

[Mr. terzmo]

" These are two very different things! In his concurrence, Kavanaugh then went on to preemptively greenlight a variety of restrictions on concealed carry permits, including “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force.” All these requirements, he declared, are “constitutionally permissible.”

!8th and 19th century a boy could buy a firearm just by saying it was for an adult. There were no age or gender statutes back then, just what the locals "thought" was proper and throughout the Country there was no standard for that "thought" Kavanaugh is totally wrong per what is based by the Thomas decision.

 

[gunpoliticsny]

Slate is garbage. They're desperate to find nugget they can cling on to..

 

[dwa12479]

Why are we reading Slate? We might as well see whats up at Mother Jones, Huff Post and Vox too.

 

[prambo]

I've got an old copy of Voelkisher Beobachter laying around you can borrow - pretty similar to Slate.

 

[Truebeliever]

" These are two very different things! In his concurrence, Kavanaugh then went on to preemptively greenlight a variety of restrictions on concealed carry permits, including “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force.” All these requirements, he declared, are “constitutionally permissible.”

!8th and 19th century a boy could buy a firearm just by saying it was for an adult. There were no age or gender statutes back then, just what the locals "thought" was proper and throughout the Country there was no standard for that "thought" Kavanaugh is totally wrong per what is based by the Thomas decision.

The question is was there a history of such standards when the constitution was established. Not could a child do something in the name of an adult . We all know at one time , an adult could send a child with money and a note to buy beer for the adult too. It doesn’t mean the law allowed that .
Now as to the 5th circuit decision, I think a lifetime ban in unconstitutional at a minimum for those who did the crime prior to the ban becoming law. But a previous pre Heller SCOTUS court didn’t see it that way— they might and should flip that decision

 

[Mr. terzmo]

The definition of a 'child" was different from today. Under 18 and a person is still considered a child today by Family and law. At age 15 a "man" could have been married and a Father. And easily able to own and purchase a firearm without question.

 

[RedBreast21]

The founders, in what I have read, ( I mean their own words and letters to congress) did if fact express their belief in inalienable right to self defense and well as support of the militia when it came to firearms. Now there is in fact no way to create any or acknowledge any right and for it to not have conflicts as society progresses or regresses. We say often that the criminal has no right to a firearm and thereby no right to self defense, yet we agree that it is a God given right and yet "Man" as stepped in to remove that right from an individual.

The real question is, what limitations do we have as a society when it comes to inalienable rights? The answer, like it or not, is none. The founders allowed us a mechanism within our founding documents to amend or eliminate any part of the constitution. None of it is absolute.

Our society is in decline along with the values that created this country.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

"Our society is in decline along with the values that created this country."


I'll second that

 

[Cooolone]

Slate is garbage. They're desperate to find nugget they can cling on to..

^^^THIS^^^

And besides, he can say whatever he wants as his opinion, even in decent... but the fact is the RULING says otherwise... No 2nd Tier litmus testing for application or exercising of RIGHTS! Quite frankly, TRAINING is exactly that, so NO... Unless of course there will be tolerated TRAINING in order to VOTE? The other litmus they noted to be applied is to mirror the other 43 States that don't seem to have the issues the 7 that want to infringe upon 2A Rights constantly clamor about... They have SOME limits, but few compared to the ridiculousness like NY will play. All absurd of course because the bottom line is the CRIMINAL seems to have more RIGHTS these days than a Law Abiding Citizen!

We are at the Ultimate Inversion, where the Government gets to do whatever it wants, and Citizens must obtain permission!
... Forgot who said it, but it's true today more than ever!

 

[spat]

The question is was there a history of such standards when the constitution was established. Not could a child do something in the name of an adult . We all know at one time , an adult could send a child with money and a note to buy beer for the adult too. It doesn’t mean the law allowed that .
Now as to the 5th circuit decision, I think a lifetime ban in unconstitutional at a minimum for those who did the crime prior to the ban becoming law. But a previous pre Heller SCOTUS court didn’t see it that way— they might and should flip that decision

Actually at the time the constitution was ratified the child could stop by the bar on his way home from work and buy his own beer.

 

[Truebeliever]

Actually at the time the constitution was ratified the child could stop by the bar on his way home from work and buy his own beer.

True.

 

[DamionMC]

Slate is garbage. They're desperate to find nugget they can cling on to..

More Slate GIGO....

"Moms Demand Action" still sounds like a PornHub category its always disappointing to find out that they are just anti-American civil liberties hating organization that exists solely to infringe on American's absolute rights with arms ownership.

The "Volunteers' are sure wasting a lot of time, and still haven't found anything - other than media national attention

The Volunteer Moms Poring Over Archives to Prove Clarence Thomas Wrong

What they’ve found directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s conclusions.

slate.com

- the only thing they could find was post-civil war unconstitutional laws, with the false claim of "analogous gun laws that existed prior to 1900" - However SCOTUS only stated regarding laws that existed around 1790's (when the 2nd Amendment was actually ratified) so finding unconstitutional laws from 1890's not even analogous to 1790's