Shrouded In The Mists Of Time

Bruen strikes again.

Texas judge rules gun-buying ban for people under felony indictment is unconstitutional
U.S. District Judge David Counts, whom then-President Donald Trump appointed to the federal bench, dismissed a federal indictment against Jose Gomez Quiroz that had charged him under the federal ban.
[…]
“Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that … (the federal ban) – which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm – aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition.”

Hence, he ruled the ban unconstitutional as the “Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right,” as noted in a 2008 Supreme Court ruling. “No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right,” Counts wrote. After the New York case, “the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden.”

Hardly surprising, assuming honest courts (a big assumption). Bruen threw out New York’s Sullivan Act of 1911 “good case” licensing requirement for lack of general, historical tradition. If a century+ infringement couldn’t make the grade, what chance — again, in an honest court — did an infringement, dating back no more than 54 years, have: Gun Control Act of 1968.

Much of the GCA ’68 is on very thin ice.

California v. Diaz
Diaz was busted for carrying an unregistered handgun without a license. The court cited Bruen and tossed the charges.

California’s under-21 semiauto sales ban
The appeals court’s 2-1 majority on May 11 had said the judge erred in upholding an “almost total ban” on semiautomatic rifles for young adults. It upheld a requirement that young adults obtain hunting licenses before buying “long guns.”

Wednesday’s order is a temporary victory for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who defended the ban.

It’s only a temporary victory in that it’s a stalling action against the inevitable state loss: the lower court — already hostile to the state’s violation of rights for those under 21 — is directed to further examine the ban in light of Bruen.

Unconstitutional GCA restrictions are beginning to drop like flies, now that the Supreme Court has put the lower courts on notice that the intermediate scrutiny game doesn’t play anymore.

Strict scrutiny allows unconstitutional infringements if a judge decides it’s “close enough for government work.”

And that’s strict scrutiny, applied comparatively rarely. Intermediate and rational basis review can allow laws that aren’t needed, don’t address the problem, and punish those who aren’t responsible, which is why people-controlling victim disarmers hate strict scrutiny. Bottaro appears to prefer intermediate scrutiny, in which restrictions on rights are merely “related” to the supposed need.

Strict scrutiny supposedly required that an infringement at least do something to aid in the government’s alleged compelling interest. It’s not as good as the much tougher Bruen general, historical tradition test, but I wonder why courts wouldn’t use even strict scrutiny…

That’s rhetorical, of course. I’ll show you why.

Note that post GCA of 1968, violent crime continued to rise.

FOPA of 1986 (ban on new machine guns): crime still rising.

Strict scrutiny would have required the law to work. The GCA doesn’t; never did.

Brady background checks? NICS? Lautenberg’s retroactive “domestic violence” prohibited persons? All of those came after the 1991 violent crime peak, when crimes rate were already on the way down. Check the trend; no discernible difference.

Until you get to 2001, when the drop in crimes rates slowed. Despite that the GCA, FOPA, Brady, NICS, and Lautenberg are all still ineffectively on the books. The misnamed “assault weapon ban” of 1994 did expire, but for some reason — ineffectiveness comes to mind again — the crime, with a slight bump, continued to drop.

The laws didn’t — and don’t — work as advertised (which begs the also rhetorical question of “What are they really for?”).

Aside from the recognition of constitutionally protected rights, Bruen may do something else good. Finally, Congress may be required to pass only laws that work as advertised.

Some, anyway. Even Bruen signaled that some restrictions — which never existed prior to 1968 are still peachy: felons, mentally deficient persons, and unlawful drug users. I chalk that up to cultural inertia on the part of all the SCOTUS justices (yes, Thomas, too). I would be very interested in seeing the SCOTUS — and Thomas’ — reaction to a well-funded challenge, on the basis of their own BRUEN decision, by a former felon drug abuser who has been clean and honest for years.

Hopefully, such a challenge will also mention automatic voting rights restoration upon completion of sentence, and ask, “What makes the Second Amendment right second class this time? Where’s the general historical tradition for that, since it never existed prior to 1968?”

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *