via bearingarms:
When the Supreme Court handed down the Bruen decision, it shattered a lot of people’s hopes and dreams. I mean, yeah, everyone kind of knew what was coming to some degree or another, but the decision still changed the judicial landscape on Second Amendment cases going forward.
A year later, a lot of people are still crying about it.
That doesn’t surprise me, and I would probably still be griping if I were in their shoes as well. I don’t begrudge them that because I really don’t want to be a hypocrite.
Yet if you’re going to argue against something like Bruen, you should do a better job than this guy.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen rejected New York’s century-old approach to gun regulation and announced a new test for Second Amendment rights. That test was constructed entirely out of a set of primary school—or maybe law school—beliefs about the simplicity and objectivity of historical analysis. It has now placed a straitjacket of historicism on regulations seeking to address the epidemic of gun violence in society today.
Coming at a time when stare decisis on the high court seemed to have taken a vacation. Bruen administered legal steroids to a right that the Court had only recently invented. Sadly, there is just no other way to say it: The Bruen opinion was moronic. Somehow the Court’s majority figured that judges could put themselves in the shoes of the framers and figure out that those 18th-century gentlemen had already looked at the “societal problem” of gun violence as it manifests today and decided that the best policy was unrestricted possession of arms for self-defense.