Thanks to Chief Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit, “the justices now have exhaustive historical evidence that the Framers would have no objection to age limits on gun purchase or possession. It should not be a close call.” slate.com/news-and-pol... - ThreadSky

tribelaw.bsky.social • 10 hours ago

Thanks to Chief Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit, “the justices now have exhaustive historical evidence that the Framers would have no objection to age limits on gun purchase or possession. It should not be a close call.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/03/conservative-ruling-supreme-court-youth-gun-bans.html

Comments

sarracopia.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Who gives a shit, honestly? Looking to the Framers for absolute rules on things they could not possibly have contemplated is borderline cultish. The Framers were men, not gods.

Originalism is the refuge of the lazy and weak-minded.

fauxrrari1.bsky.social•10 hours ago

There needs to be more. There is a line (so far; it might get questioned, too) that stops the avg gun nut from owning, ie, a heavy machine gun, anti tank weapons etc. And I still marvel at the lack of attention to the 'WELL REGULATED MILITIA' component - totally ignored.

cliffaschaffer.bsky.social•10 hours ago

People who are part of organized military units have no right to bear arms at all. They bear arms only under orders from their commander. Any right that requires permission from a government authority is not a right.

fauxrrari1.bsky.social•10 hours ago

but this is who is fighting for more guns. Yep. Well regulated.

cliffaschaffer.bsky.social•10 hours ago

"well regulated" meant "in good working order." It didn't mean "lots of rules." "Lots of rules" is antithetical to that called the Bill of Rights.

markirakaufman.bsky.social•9 hours ago

At time the amendment was being framed, the word “militia” already meant an ORGANIZED military force. So Madison proposed adding “well regulated” to emphasize how important the organization was.

cliffaschaffer.bsky.social•9 hours ago

No, "militia" meant all the able-bodied adult males regardless of whether they ever had any military training or organization. Still does, except that modern law includes women. See USC 10-246

"Well regulated" doesn't mean "important." Not even close.

fauxrrari1.bsky.social•10 hours ago

exactly. Ex-infantry. Nobody wandered around with guns. They were handed out ONLY for specific exercises, and even then ammo was very closely controlled and accounted for.

cliffaschaffer.bsky.social•10 hours ago

I was on the school rifle team competing against other public schools when I was a kid. Everybody in the community had guns and we carried them on campus every day. Some schools had shooting ranges in the back of the gym for the rifle teams to practice.

cliffaschaffer.bsky.social•10 hours ago

That is not a "right." The 2A is in the Bill of Rights. Not the name.
Soldiers don't have the same rights as civilians.
Do you get the connection?

sameastheold.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Hmmm, interesting that conservatives now support gun restrictions, when the Trump administration is on the precipice of declaring martial law.

kristla.bsky.social•10 hours ago

It’s also a good thing to do in modern times, much like removing a sociopaths from office.

cherfan75.bsky.social•6 hours ago

https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/trump-fentanyl-weapon-of-mass-destruction-executive-order-draft-scoop

This order must be stopped!!!

chelsiejan.bsky.social•9 hours ago

🖐🏼🖐🏼🖐🏼🖐🏼🖐🏼

hoovermy.bsky.social•7 hours ago

I suspect that if they could have seen all this back then, they would written the Constitution in far greater detail, and allowing for more amending in detail and shorter approval time.

markirakaufman.bsky.social•10 hours ago

I thought that a right to own a firearm was part of a right to defend oneself, and own the means to do so - and had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. But when SCOTUS used the amendment in Heller to affirm the right, Scalia wrote something interesting in his majority opinion.

overit1971.bsky.social•10 hours ago

Hope

sharonlindsey.bsky.social•10 hours ago

juvenalisdacat.bsky.social•10 hours ago

Great read, absolutely agree.
Unfortunately the historical record hasn't stopped them from doing what they want in past decisions. They'll cherry pick or ignore is my bet.

always4bangtan.bsky.social•9 hours ago

📌

rationalpear.bsky.social•8 hours ago

I can’t believe that ppl still think that this courts give a flying fuck about precedent, history, facts, evidence, the clear text of the constitution, or anything else. They do whatever the want. that’s all. They have a political ideology, and make the law fit into it.

davemarc.us•10 hours ago

Oh, Brother Tribe …

You know as well as I do that SCOTUS had an amicus brief in Bruen that examined centuries of gun laws in both the US and UK and the majority ignored it in forming their shiny, new "historical tradition" test.

Breyer eviscerated the majority in his dissent.

They don't care.

eileenflieg.bsky.social•10 hours ago

Interesting article!

hermanatorilm.bsky.social•10 hours ago

What a great surprise!

mac11187.bsky.social•9 hours ago

That's great but “history and tradition" originalism is still just a dumb excuse to cherry-pick facts in support of judicial activism.

michelecp.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Well, they had plenty of historical evidence to rule the president is not a king but they did anyway so I wouldn't count on this moving them.

kensawone.bsky.social•10 hours ago

My opinion has always been that the interpretations made by decades of court decisions has all but completely obscured the original intent of the Second Amendment.
Thank you Judge Pryor.

sandraeb.bsky.social•5 hours ago

When writing the constitution the framers never envisioned a weapon that could shoot over 100 bullets in seconds.

johnnyappleseed46.bsky.social•10 hours ago

Supreme court chief justice Roberts says impeachment 'not an appropriate response' after Trump comment

theblueline.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Different times. Food for the family. One shot black powder rifles.

mdwca.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Are people directing the implementation of trumps illegal acts liable for their actions or are they covered by his immunity?

shulamitlahat.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Message - and warning - very explicitly and publicly issued from SCOTUS:
"Chief Justice Roberts Criticizes Trump’s Call to Impeach Judges. Rare public statement comes hours after president called for removal of judge who sought to temporarily block some deportations"
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/chief-justice-roberts-criticizes-trumps-call-to-impeach-judges-e3b2be89?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply