Thomas writing the opinion for the majority was brutally direct,
Heller basically said that the 2A was "for the people" and not contingent upon service in any militia. So of course the public should have access to common weapons. It took a "two-part" approach that said while the 2A was "shall not be infringed", there could be reasonable regulations if weapons were uncommon. And that the judgement of judges should be based on (a) history (b) balanced with public interest.
NY Rifle, basically says we're not doing that again. Leftist judges were infringing regularly on the rights of gun owners by "simply posit[ing] that the regulation promotes an important interest". So this was strictly conditional on originalism: what did the Constitution say and intend when written -- they could only rely on history.
- "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
Then it goes on to define "what History" to prevent the activist side of the court finding the worst law and using it as a baseline. And details the following (to prevent judicial overreach):
- We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning
applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” [1]
- Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
The right to "bear arms" didn't mean in your home, it meant in public.
- Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep
and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”... confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.”
- The guidance on history, is use Constitionally relevant history, not Magna Carta, not 20th century progressivism.... we reiterated that evidence of “how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its
ratification through the end of the 19th century” represented a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation.”
- Thomas points out that Gun Control was a vile tool used to prevent blacks from having their civil rights (right to protect themselves and their homes).
- Thomas points out a few restrictions in the wild west (Az, Nm) or American Teritories (not states) were not particularly valid examples, because so few people lived under those laws, and only for short periods of time.
- Thomas excludes bad rulings like when the Kansas Supreme Court upheld a complete ban on public carry enacted by the city of Salina in 1901 based on the rationale that the Second Amendment protects only “the right to bear arms as a member of the
state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law.” Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 232, 83 P. 619, 620 (1905). That was clearly erroneous. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 592.
🔗 More
| |
Tags: NY Rifle
- ↑ 554 U. S., at 582.
