Supreme Court ruled Bruen methodology (Text/history/tradition - burden shifting to states) as law of the land, how will this apply to future 2A cases?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The US did not win the revolutionary war because of positive thoughts. Mostly due to help from the French, especially the French navy. Just like Ukraine won't win the war against Russia via positivity.

In any case, all of our rights are interrelated and pretending a "good" attitude will somehow change that is just not going to happen. I know there is this bizarre thought by some people that all you need is a "good" attitude and all the problems will go away. It just does not work that way in reality.
 
The US did not win the revolutionary war because of positive thoughts. Mostly due to help from the French
Just like NRA winning Vullo Supreme Court case with help of ACLU?

And European countries winning against Nazi Germany with help from the US?

Believe me, the anti-gun crowd is super focused on how to impose on the rights of the gun owners ... Just like those that wanted to impose on the rights of the colonists because majority mob rule always want to impose on the minority.

And like the allies during WWII coming together despite their differences to overcome and win against Nazi Germany ... Pro 2A allies must come together despite our differences, like how other minority groups such as blacks, Hispanics, asian, women, LGBTQ crowd are increasingly becoming gun owners and likely support fight for gun rights.

pretending a "good" attitude will somehow change that is just not going to happen.
While there are harsh realities of life all around us, some of us choose to pursue our lives focusing on things we enjoy, like hobbies which help us relax and perhaps better face and deal with realities of life, instead of being uptight and having a nervous breakdown.

This thread, among countless many other threads, started as ONE thread to have a shift in focus to perhaps relax and have a better mindset toward progression of Supreme Court ruling, encouraged by how Supreme Court ruled for other Bill of Right amendments, as reaffirmed by Bruen methodology now being "binding law" of the land.

Did things look gloomy for slaves? You bet but "We the People" defended their rights and they were freed and their vote counted 100% instead of 3/5. Did things look bleak for women's right to vote? There was a time that was no way but "We the People" changed that and they can vote now. "We the People" with Supreme Court rulings helped protect minority rights as founded and amended to the Bill of Rights. And since the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", protection should continue for minority gunowners' right under the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited:
My take on the question posed by the title/OP - we just won't know how Bruen will or will not be applied in future cases until we have at least a handful of SCOTUS cases applying Bruen. Rahimi is the first time SCOTUS applied Bruen's "text, history, tradition" test. It's the only controlling example of that application we have. As a result, we can't talk about how Bruen will be applied in the future without talking about Rahimi. But we won't really know whether Rahimi gutted Bruen or is as narrow as the majority cast the decision until we have several more opinions from SCOTUS applying both precedents together. I know that's a terribly unsatisfactory answer, but it's reality.
 
Which will add more layers of confusion to what is really a very simple proposition: that people are allowed to have guns.
The issue is not about whether people can have guns. There are no serious attempts to ban all guns, at least presently.
 
So, let's refocus and celebrate the founders and cheer for the Supreme Court which keeps reaffirming and expanding Second Amendment protection outlined in this post - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...apply-to-future-2a-cases.931586/post-12927429

And let's cheer for Bruen methodology now "binding law" of the land to be applied to future 2A cases.

I appreciate the enthusiasm and optimism. I really do. But my inner curmudgeon just can't help but respond to this. I wouldn't put too much stock in the three "liberal" justices joining an opinion applying Bruen as precedent as some indication that Bruen will stand long-term. All three of them specifically noted that they did not agree with Bruen. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan:

Although I continue to believe that Bruen was wrongly decided, see id., at 83–133 (Breyer, J., joinedby SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting), I join theCourt’s opinion applying that precedent to uphold 18U. S. C. § 922(g)(8).

And Justice Jackson:

This case tests our Second Amendment jurisprudence as shaped in particular by New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022). I disagree with the methodology of that decision; I would have joined the dissent had I been a Member of the Court at that time. See generally id., at 83–133 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

Indeed, all three of them indicated they may be open to revisiting Bruen if someone asks in an appropriate case. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan:

Although I continue to think that the means-end approach to Second Amendment analysis is the right one, neither party asks the Court to reconsider Bruen at this time, and that question would of course involve other considerations than whether Bruen was rightly decided.

Justice Jackson:

I write separately because we now have two years’ worthof post-Bruen cases under our belts, and the experiences ofcourts applying its history-and-tradition test should bearon our assessment of the workability of that legal standard. This case highlights the apparent difficulty faced by judgeson the ground. Make no mistake: Today’s effort to clear up“misunderst[andings],” ante, at 7, is a tacit admission thatlower courts are struggling. In my view, the blame may lie with us, not with them.

Bruen is binding until it isn't. As Dobbs illustrated vividly, Supreme Court precedent is only good so long as there are five justices on the Court who are unwilling to overturn it, regardles of what those five justices may have said or indicated in the past. And even if five justices never come around to explicitly overtuning a precedent, they can hollow it out or ignore it until they just declare the precedent dead from abandonment as happened somewhat recently with the "Lemon" test in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. (I'm not saying whether any of this is right or wrong; just stating the reality of the situation).

I don't say this to be pessimistic or to sound alarm bells about the sky falling because "we lost" Rahimi. I think it's useful and important to take a measured look at things and find silver linings even when things don't turn out the way you might have hoped. I think Rahimi was useful in, for example, explicitly rejecting the government's argument that it can prohibt anyone who is not a "law-abiding, responsible citizen" from possessing a firearm. That sort of unbounded, circular test would have let the government define who is "law-abiding and responsible" in ever-more-limited ways. I'm sure there are other silver linings that folks closer to this can and have expounded upon.

My point is this: don't be complacent just because all nine justices have signed on to Bruen or an opinion applying Bruen. There are still three votes to overturn Heller if the opportunity arises. They'll be whittling at Heller and Bruen every opportunity they get. And the various separate opinions in Rahimi illustrate that the other justices are not of the same mind on the 2A or their judicial philosophies more broadly. An issue I think the justices are going to have to confront at some point is the so-called "assault weapons" bans, but I'm not at all sure how that is going to turn out.
 
I appreciate the enthusiasm and optimism. I really do. But my inner curmudgeon just can't help but respond to this. I wouldn't put too much stock in the three "liberal" justices joining an opinion applying Bruen as precedent as some indication that Bruen will stand long-term. All three of them specifically noted that they did not agree with Bruen.
And I really appreciate your thoughtful responses to what's been posted on this thread, especially by me instead of going, "We are doomed. All is lost. Originalist justices betrayed the founders, etc." :)

I too was hopeful when justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were appointed to the Supreme Court as recommended by the Federalist Society as I watched several of their presentation videos (Oh my, some very lengthy) as they represented returning the Supreme Court back to founding "Originalism" as even justice Kagan stated "We are all Originalists". And justice Ginsburg welcomed and defended justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as "very decent and very smart" with impeccable reasoning. I was elated as I had hope justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would restore the Supreme Court back to the institution the founder had intended.

And having read then judge Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion for Heller 2, where he stated modern semi-auto rifles are constitutionally protected (This is when antis were vehemently working to ban "assault weapons/rifles" and experienced progressing success) gave me hope for expansion of Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms when all hope seemed to have been lost. (I grew up in California and now with anti-2A Democrats in full control of Sacramento, I have seen and experienced first hand what MAJORITY MOB RULE IMPOSING ON MINORITY RIGHTS looks and feels like ... SECOND CLASS CITIZENS with SECOND CLASS RIGHTS and our voice/representation in Sacramento doesn't matter as majority job rule can do whatever they want and have ... Only saving grace has been the numerous endless lawsuits challenging these impositions and WINNING ... Yes, Californian gun owners have actually won in many cases)

Believe me, you DO NOT want what happened in CA, NY, etc. happening to "We the People" of other states.

So when "We the People" spoke in 2016 to elect a pro-2A executive to appoint hundreds of federal judges and three justices then Bruen ruling came, I thought what founders did actually worked to protect minority rights, just as Supreme Court has ruled to protect other Bill of Rights of minorities. Some may not realize it but in 2016, we dodged a planet sized bullet. (Yes, we dodged Supreme Court turning anti-2A and Bruen ruling may not have happened)

And what did Bruen ruling give us?

Restoration of text, history and tradition going all the way back to 1791 ratification of Bill of Rights and this is significant for Supreme Court embracing and becoming "Originalists" BECAUSE the two step approach ALL THE courts, including the Supreme Court used for decades to limit gun rights WENT OUT THE WINDOW and replaced with Bruen methodology embraced by the Originalist justices. 👍

Another thing Bruen ruling gave us is the burden shifting to the states/government to provide historical evidence of regulation "analogue". And as clearly illustrated by judge Benitez in Miller and Duncan cases, CA attorneys COULD NOT come up with satisfactory "analogues". If there were, they would have presented them to judge Benitez but as pointed out by judge Benitez, CA state failed to produce historical evidence. NOW you know why anti-2A judges' narrative has changed to use the "military weapon" argument and a lot of hand waving for Bruen methodology to be modified/adjusted which was tested in Rahimi and we will see how application of Bruen methodology unfolds in future 2A cases. 👍

This is why I started this and other 2A lawsuit related threads because we are experiencing history in the making of, IMHO, turning point for gun/accessories ban due to Bruen ruling - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-19#post-12925491

And what happened in Rahimi case regarding a very bad person doing bad things and rightfully disarmed (Temporarily per federal law) but what is significant as acknowledged by even the anti-2A justices is that Bruen methodology PASSED THE FIRST TEST and is now the "BINDING LAW" OF THE LAND to be applied to all future Second Amendment cases. 👍👍👍

This is new as for the first time in this nation's history, now the burden shifted to the states/government to produce historical evidence of 2A regulations. If they can, sure Bruen methodology will apply. But if they can't, so sorry, new regulations without historical analogues won't be allowed and ruled unconstitutional.

Am I being optimistic with hopes and dreams?

No, that's what the Supreme Court ruled and all the justices confirmed and reaffirmed. What about dissenting opinions? I thought only the Court's opinion really mattered, not the hand waving of the dissenting opinion? ;)

So now, we get to watch the states/government being "burdened" to come up with historical evidence of "analogous" regulations. Do we have something like this in CA to protect gun owners? Heck no. But I am hopeful that Bruen ruling/methodology now reaffirmed in Rahimi ruling will take us into a new direction of Second Amendment protection of minority rights not being a "second class right".

I tell you, I like where we are in 2024. Had "We the People" not spoken in 2016, we could be somewhere very dark about now. And I am hopeful that "We the People" will speak again in November to perhaps allow pro-2A majority representation in the House/Senate and with pro-2A president (Stupid Trump ... Who now knows executive branch/administrative agencies cannot exceed statutory authority), there's possibility that permanent enforcement could happen in the way of federal/state laws.

I am cheering for "We the People" to speak in November. :)
 
Repost from another thread due to pertinence to this thread discussion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...g-in-u-s-v-rahimi.931587/page-2#post-12928826

We won't know whether Rahimi undid Bruen
Maybe this will help.

I went over the Rahimi ruling and searched for "Bruen" and majority opinion cited extensively from Bruen as to how the Supreme Court "explained", "clarified" and "directed courts" Heller's ruling regarding "text and history" to examine “historical tradition of firearm regulation” because "some courts have misunderstood the methodology" and reaffirmed Heller that "reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. Rather, it 'extends, prima facie, to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.'”

Rahimi ruling further reaffirmed burden of providing historical evidence shifting to the states/government and stated, "Government must show that the restriction 'is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation' ... Government ... bears the burden to 'justify its regulation'"

I am not a lawyer but to this layperson, Rahimi ruling did not undo Bruen and as justice Jackson stated, reaffirmed Bruen as "binding law" of the land - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

In Bruen, we explained that when a firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (Page 4)​
In light of Bruen, the panel ... ordered additional briefing ... Surveying the evidence that the Government had identified, the panel concluded that Section 922(g)(8) does not fit within our tradition of firearm regulation ... We granted certiorari.​
Derived from English practice and codified in the Second Amendment, the right secures for Americans a means of self-defense. Bruen (Page 5)​
In Heller, our inquiry into the scope of the right began with “constitutional text and history.” Bruen
In Bruen, we directed courts to examine our “historical tradition of firearm regulation” to help delineate the contours of the right. We explained that if a challenged regulation fits within that tradition, it is lawful under the Second Amendment. We also clarified that when the Government regulates arms-bearing conduct, as when the Government regulates other constitutional rights, it bears the burden to “justify its regulation.”​
... some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases ... As we explained in Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” ... Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers.​
As we explained in Bruen, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. A court must ascertain whether the new law is “relevantly similar” to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, “apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.” (Page 7)​
This Court reviewed the history of American gun laws extensively in Heller and Bruen. (Page 9)​
Unlike the regulation struck down in Bruen, Section 922(g)(8) does not broadly restrict arms use by the public generally. (Page 14)​
Our analysis of the surety laws in Bruen also does not help Rahimi.​
In Bruen, we explained that the surety laws were not a proper historical analogue for New York’s gun licensing regime. (Page 15)​
While we also noted ... to emphasize just how severely the State treated the rights of its citizens. But as we have explained, our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation distinguishes citizens who have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others from those who have not. The conclusion that focused regulations like the surety laws are not a historical analogue for a broad prohibitory regime like New York’s does not mean that they cannot be an appropriate analogue for a narrow one.​

As we said in Bruen, a “historical twin” is not required. (Page 16)​

In Heller and Bruen, we used the term “responsible” to describe the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right ... In Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, this Court did not “undertake an exhaustive historical analysis ... of the full scope of the Second Amendment.” ... we conclude only this: An individual ... may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. (Page 17)​
 
Last edited:
Repost from another thread due to pertinence to this thread discussion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...g-in-u-s-v-rahimi.931587/page-2#post-12928826


Maybe this will help.

I went over the Rahimi ruling and searched for "Bruen" and majority opinion cited extensively from Bruen . . .

I should have put my "undid" in quotes in the post of mine that you quote. I was responding to a theme of other comments in that thread that suggested Rahimi gutted or undid Bruen (an opinion I don't share but we won't really know probably for years). Yes, Rahimi cited Bruen extensively. Indeed, Rahimi is the only controlling example we have of how Bruen's "text, history, and tradition" test is to be applied. Certainly, from the pro-2A point of view, it's far preferable to have the fights in court be over the scope of an individual right to keep and bear arms and what principles to extract from history than the alternative univese we would be in if the dissenting opinions from either Heller or Bruen had prevailed. Justice Gorsuch made a similar point in his concurring opinion:

I appreciate that one of our colleagues sees things differently. Post, at 6–7 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). But if reasonable minds can disagree whether §922(g)(8) is analogous to past practices originally understood to fall outside the Second Amendment’s scope, we at least agree that is the only proper question a court may ask. Post, at 5. Discerning what the original meaning of the Constitution requires in this or that case may sometimes be difficult. Asking that question, however, at least keeps judges in their proper lane, seeking to honor the supreme law the people have ordained rather than substituting our will for theirs.

My broader point is that it's just too early to tell what real impact Bruen will have on 2A jurisprudence. Justices can pay lip service to precedent while actually undermining it with their decisions in cases. That sort of thing happens all the time. Precedents tend to take on a life of their own as time goes on. The notorious Chevron case is an example of this---it was generally thought of as a nothing-burner of a decison at the time but it ended up having an huge effect years down the road on how courts review agency interpretations of statutes and even their own rules. In recent years, though, the government has often avoided relying on it because several justices have indicated they may overrule or limit that rule (stay tuned this month for whether SCOTUS retires Chevron or gives it a new lease on life). The justices are lawyers, after all.

At this point, all we know from Rahimi is the immediate judgment of the Court. We don't know whether it's merely a narrow application of the Bruen test that will be little-cited ten years from now, or if it's the first step in the Court retreating from Bruen toward something else and will take on outsized importance. These questions can't be answered now. Only time will tell, and the answer will depend in part on which cases the Court takes and who is on the Court when it decides those cases. The rest is up to the justices, and no one really knows their minds except for (maybe) them.
 
I should have put my "undid" in quotes in the post of mine that you quote. I was responding to a theme of other comments in that thread that suggested Rahimi gutted or undid Bruen (an opinion I don't share but we won't really know probably for years).
Yes I saw that, but took the opportunity to bring the focus of thread discussion down to what I believe is more important aspect of Rahimi case pertinent to THIS thread discussion and that is:

Rahimi case was the first TEST of Bruen. First test of Bruen where the core methodology of CHANGING how 2A cases were approached for decades to returning back to "Originalist" intent of what the founders intended by the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights (Which HAD to be ADDED to the Constitution because the founders SAW that it was necessary to protect minority rights from the majority mob rule, that we have seen since the founding as Republic and checked by Electoral College/Senate and the Supreme Court).

And now all the justices acknowledged not only Bruen methodology of "text, history and tradition" as "binding law" of the land but also begrudgingly the states/government now has the BURDEN to provide historical evidence and liberal justices did A LOT of handwaving why this burden maybe too much of a burden but in the end, conceded to Bruen methodology being the "binding law" of the land.

it's just too early to tell what real impact Bruen will have on 2A jurisprudence.

from Rahimi ... We don't know whether it's merely a narrow application of the Bruen test that will be little-cited ten years from now, or if it's the first step in the Court retreating from Bruen toward something else and will take on outsized importance. These questions can't be answered now. Only time will tell, and the answer will depend in part on which cases the Court takes and who is on the Court when it decides those cases.
I agree.

BUT the fact is, Bruen methodology was TESTED in Rahami and the majority opinion explained, clarified and directs courts, including the Supreme Court how to apply Heller, Caetano and Bruen moving forward. And as Mark Smith pointed out, justice Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion hinted it's time for protection of "modern" types of arms like magazine fed semi-auto rifles - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...o-future-2a-cases.931586/page-4#post-12927459

So I look forward to Supreme Court and lower courts approach and apply Bruen methodology moving forward with anticipation.

The rest is up to the justices, and no one really knows their minds except for (maybe) them.
And that's how the founders framed this Republic and how "We the People" self governed for 230 years.

In time, we will look back and see how "We the People" self governed in protecting minority rights of gun owners but for now, it will be wait and see.

So tell gun owners to vote in November so "We the People" can do what the founders intended ... protect minority rights from majority mob rule imposition.
 
Last edited:
Update to Garland v Range (Non-violent felon's RKBA) - https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/07/02/scotus-takes-action-on-pending-2a-cases-n1225469

Following Rahimi (Temporary disarming of violent felon) ruling that tested Bruen and ruled that Bruen methodology is now "binding law" of the land, Supreme Court GVR'd Range case and 3rd Circuit entered a major order involving 18 USC 922g1.

Critical Court Order Just Entered in Range Case - Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner video covers:

"... if you're a non-violent felon, you cannot be disarmed under the Second Amendment"​
  • 3rd Circuit has ordered immediate supplemental briefing as to what the Rahimi case means for the Range case
  • "By order entered July 2nd 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated this Court's en banc opinion and remanded the case for further consideration in light of US v Rahimi. At the direction of the Court, the parties are ordered to file simultaneous supplemental briefs addressing the impact of Rahimi on this matter. The supplemental brief shall be filed within 21 days from the date of this order and shall not exceed 6,500 words. The party shall file the supplemental briefs in electronic format and provide 16 copies of the supplemental briefs in paper format."
  • Brian range, a non-violent felon cannot be disarmed under the Second Amendment because there's no historical basis for disarming someone who's non-violent for the rest of their lives and I think that's what the 3rd Circuit's going to do in the next few months
0:00 Major Breaking News!​
1:15 This Is A Huge Deal...​
2:46 What "Felons" Actually Are​
6:38 US Court Orders Supplemental Briefs​
8:30 My Prediction & Why This Matters So Much!​
13:40 Thank You!​
 
Last edited:
Update to Garland v Range (Non-violent felon's RKBA) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...o-future-2a-cases.931586/page-5#post-12939790

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner discuss Range case arguments:

DOJ makes terrible argument against 2nd Amendment in federal court ... In the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City, Biden's Department of Justice has taken an interesting position in its attempt to cut back on Second Amendment rights. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains.

0:00 Next Major 2A Frontier​
1:05 Case Background & Details​
3:40 DOJ’s Argument​
5:30 Why This Argument Doesn’t Work…​
12:56 Thank You​
 
It would have been tough for the Court to rule in favor of Rahimi, in view of the personal facts of his case. "Hard cases make bad law." I never believed that this was a good subject to bring forward as a test case. A better one would have been something like Hunter Biden, a nonviolent drug abuser.
The DoJ brought the case forward. They wanted to present the issue with the biggest dirt bag possible to tip the scales of justice for a reason.
 
It would have been tough for the Court to rule in favor of Rahimi, in view of the personal facts of his case. "Hard cases make bad law." I never believed that this was a good subject to bring forward as a test case. A better one would have been something like Hunter Biden, a nonviolent drug abuser.
The DoJ brought the case forward. They wanted to present the issue with the biggest dirt bag possible to tip the scales of justice for a reason.
Yes.

The significance of Rahimi case was the government wanted to permanently disarm "We the People" using bad case of violent felon example but that attempt FAILED.

What the Supreme Court decided was:
  • "We the People" have the right to keep and bear arms even though we may not be "good" all the time
  • And even the "not so good" people retain the right to keep and bear arms (2A protects "A/B/C/D" citizens as well as "F" citizens)
  • The only time "the People" can be disarmed is when a court rules "the People" are in immediate danger to self or others
  • BUT even the "F" citizens who were disarmed by the government can only be disarmed TEMPORARILY and once the immediacy of danger to self/others has passed, right to keep and bear arms must be restored back
So the government's attempt to permanently disarm "F" citizens was denied by the Supreme Court and ruled very narrowly that "the People" could only TEMPORARILY be disarmed with court ruling.

The greater significance of Rahimi case was test of Bruen methodology where two-step interest balancing approach of greater society's good over individual right used for decades was eliminated and new "Text, history and tradition" approach with burden of historical evidence shifting to the government.

Supreme Court's ruling that "We the People" could not be disarmed without court ruling and even then, could only be disarmed temporarily was arrived at using Bruen methodology and as justice Jackson conceded, is now "binding law" of the land for all future Second Amendment cases.
 
The greater significance of Rahimi case was test of Bruen methodology where two-step interest balancing approach of greater society's good over individual right used for decades was eliminated and new "Text, history and tradition" approach with burden of historical evidence shifting to the government.
Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, discuss significance of Rahimi ruling in his law review article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy why Rahimi ruling was a win for RKBA.

I just released a law review article explaining why the last major 2nd Amendment Supreme Court decision (Rahimi) was actually a win for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

0:00 Big New Article Release!​
2:00 Anti-Gunners Claim Rahimi Victory​
3:43 Rahimi Affirms Heller/Bruen Framework​
6:47 Rahimi Was Part of the People...​
9:02 Why This Matters So Much!​
12:09 Anti-Gun Propaganda​
14:02 A Revolutionary Decision?​
16:04 Thank You!​

Article here: https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jl...imi-reinforces-bruen-and-heller-mark-w-smith/

Much Ado About Nothing: Rahimi Reinforces Bruen and Heller
Mark Smith​
  • 6/21/24 - Supreme Court ruling in Rahimi
  • 5th Circuit declared federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, violated the Second Amendment.
  • Supreme Court granted certiorari
  • Zackey Rahimi was a violent young man who had attacked his ex-girlfriend, shot up public places, fired at vehicles, and possessed firearms in violation of the state restraining order that his ex-girlfriend had obtained against him, which he did not contest
  • 5th Circuit held under the historical methodology set forth by Bruen, there was no historical tradition of disarming individuals subject to such restraining orders. Would the Supreme Court, in this hard case, be forced to walk back or water down Bruen’s analytical framework?
  • Far from watering down Bruen, all the Court’s writings in Rahimieven the concurrences and the dissentfirmly cemented Bruen’s approach as providing the governing framework for deciding Second Amendment cases, even as the majority narrowly held that “[a]n individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
  • Bruen ... rejected the tiers of scrutiny and any other form of “interest-balancing” test that occasions judicial inquiry into whether the government has a sufficient reason for infringing that constitutional right. Instead, following Heller, Bruen clarified that the appropriate approach in a Second Amendment case centers on “constitutional text and history.” Bruen began with the plain text of the Second Amendment and went on to consider when our historical tradition of firearm regulation might allow some limitation on the right protected by the plain text. Rahimi followed the approach outlined in Bruen.
  • If the plain text of the Second Amendment “covers an individual’s conduct,” then that conduct is “presumptively protected” by the Constitution. A regulation infringing on that conduct cannot stand absent a showing that it “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.The burden is on the government, not the individual, to show the existence, and then the fit, of that historical tradition.
  • Mr. Rahimi’s conduct indisputably fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right of “the people” to “keep” and “bear” “Arms,” and ... Mr. Rahimi is part of “the people,” a term that “unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.”
  • He possessed a rifle and a pistol, which are “Arms” as Heller understood that term. Echoing Heller and Bruen, the Court affirmed that the term “Arms” in the Second Amendment “extends prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence” at the Founding ... its enduring text applies to modern circumstances—even those that the Framers could not have foreseen.
  • Just as the First Amendment protects speech on the internet, and the Fourth Amendment protects against tracking devices placed on one’s car without a warrant, the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear modern arms.
  • The Supreme Court in Rahimi faithfully described and applied the methodology that Bruen requires in a Second Amendment case, “following exactly the path” that Bruen had laid out. The Rahimi opinion was joined by eight justices. Only Justice Thomas dissented, and he too believed that the Bruen framework governed. He simply disagreed whether the historical analogues mustered by the Government were sufficiently similar to § 922(g)(8) to form a historical tradition that justified upholding that statute.
  • The Court turned next, per Bruen’s command, to analyze whether the Government had shown that the restriction on Mr. Rahimi’s right to keep and bear arms is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The Bruen Court ... found Heller and McDonald to require “at least” that the government show in the Nation’s historical tradition support for “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense.
  • In making the determination regarding consistency with tradition, the Court explained, any court “must ascertain whether the new law is ‘relevantly similar’ to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, ‘apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the Founding generation to modern circumstances.” Any doubt that regulatory operation (how) and purpose (why) were both “‘central’ considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry” was swept away by Rahimi’s re-exposition of Bruen’s methodological command:
Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the Founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations. Even when a law regulates arms-bearing for a permissible reason, though, it may not be compatible with the right if it does so to an extent beyond what was done at the founding. And when a challenged regulation does not precisely match its historical precursors, “it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster ...​
The Court concluded that § 922(g)(8) “fits neatly within” the well-established tradition represented by surety and affray laws, and thus upheld the statute against Mr. Rahimi’s facial challenge.​
  • ... Justice Thomas found that while the affray laws regulated public conduct, § 922(g)(8) criminalized a prohibited person’s simple possession of a firearm within his home. The cited surety laws, he believed, did not historically operate to disarm the individual but only averted the “threat of future interpersonal violence” by requiring the posting of a monetary bond that would be forfeited if the accused breached the peace. Because the tradition represented by the surety and affray laws employed means narrower than § 922(g)(8), Justice Thomas dissented.
  • ... unanimous agreement on Bruen’s doctrinal framework that is Rahimi’s most defining and remarkable feature ... The landmark cases of Heller and Bruen established the doctrinal framework of the Second Amendment right and the way to analyze claims arising under it. Rahimi has now begun the work of applying that framework to new cases
  • Arguments that Rahimi’s reference to the “principles that underpin our regulatory tradition” loosens Bruen’s requirement of a historical tradition are likewise misguided. Rahimi itself paid close attention to the operation and purpose of historical laws and did not extrapolate principles from them at a high level of generality.
  • The Government invited the Court in Rahimi to find that Heller and Bruen established an extraordinarily broad principle or historical tradition, namely, that “[l]egislatures may disarm those who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens.” The Court rightly, and summarily, rejected that attempt to find a historical tradition based on dicta in other cases rather than close historical analysis in the case before it. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority:
[W]e reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not “responsible.” “Responsible” is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail. Nor does such a line derive from our case law. In Heller and Bruen, we used the term “responsible” to describe the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right. But those decisions did not define the term and said nothing about the status of citizens who were not “responsible.” The question was simply not presented.​
  • Rahimi was, therefore, a routine application of established methodology—not the shifting of the doctrinal tide that opponents of Bruen had desired.
  • The path of the Second Amendment is now as perceptibly ordinary as that of any other constitutional right ...
  • So, what does Rahimi mean for the lower courts? As it turns out, precious little other than an affirmation of what they already knew—or should have known—after Bruen. For any of the lower courts or judges thereof who wondered if Rahimi might chip away at Bruen, the unanimous doctrinal recommitment to text and historical tradition in Rahimi shows that Bruen is here to stay. Even the justices who dissented in Bruen showed by fully joining the majority opinion in Rahimi that they understand Bruen to be the law of the land ... the lower courts are duty-bound to hew faithfully to the Court’s precedential decisions.
  • Rahimi also shows that well-established laws are not themselves sufficient to establish whatever historical tradition the government believes is to be gleaned from them. Rather, the tradition allegedly evinced by the identified historical laws is itself something that the government must satisfactorily show as a matter of law. Consider, for instance, the Government’s contention in Rahimi that the surety and affray laws demonstrated a tradition of restricting the right to keep and bear arms only to “responsible” citizens. The Court unanimously rejected this contention ...
  • Rahimi, therefore, stresses a latent logical connection between history and tradition that had been implicit in Heller and Bruen: identifying a historical tradition requires both identifying a well-established body of historical laws and demonstrating the tight inferential fit between those laws and the tradition that they allegedly establish or prove.
  • This need to identify a well-defined historical tradition that closely follows the cited historical analogues demonstrates the unconstitutionality of various governmental efforts to restrict citizens’ right to keep and bear arms: default carriage bans in places of public accommodation, long lists of gun-free zones or so-called sensitive places, lifetime possession bans on those convicted of white-collar crimes, and licensing schemes that condition one’s exercise of the right to bear arms on one’s ability to prove to government officials one’s loosely defined soundness of “moral character.”
  • While they may weave together a few laws here and a few cases there, governments so far have been UNABLE to point to any established traditions from the Founding of restricting the right of armed self-defense in these ways. This threshold failure to identify any such body of laws from the Founding, let alone to extract from it a logically sound tradition, forecloses any governmental reliance on Rahimi, which concerned the analogical fit of a recognized and bona fide tradition.
  • Stated differently, Rahimi has no effect on any case in which the government has not already carried the weighty burden of establishing a relevant historical tradition of firearms regulation—a burden it has decisively failed to carry in virtually every case currently being litigated.
  • Rahimi also relied on briefing and argument to decide the case, exemplifying for the lower courts the exercise of legal research and reasoning without the need for expert reports from historians.
  • Another takeaway from Rahimi, as Justice Kavanaugh noted in his concurrence, involves alleged historical analogues that the Government pressed below in Rahimi but abandoned before the Court. Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that the lower courts should not rely “on the history that the Constitution left behind.” This means that historical laws built on racial, ethnic, religious, or other forms of bigotry that the American people have rejected through superseding constitutional developments must be rejected as inconsistent with our constitutional commitments. When the American people incorporated the Bill of Rights against the States in 1868 and thereby extended to the newly liberated African Americans the full promise of liberty, they freed the Second Amendment—and others—from the shackles of slavery and racial prejudice. It is a grievous historical—indeed, moral—error for governments to attempt to redline constitutional rights with those portions of our history that we have overcome and rightly left behind.
  • ... some lower courts have already begun to recognize the narrowness of Rahimi’s holding and its limited direct applicability to pending Second Amendment litigation. For example, the Eighth Circuit’s recent decision in Worth v. Jacobson correctly applied Bruen’s framework and held unconstitutional a Minnesota statute restricting 18-to-20-year-olds’ right to bear arms ... the Eighth Circuit rightly recognized that Rahimi’s affirmation and application of Bruen’s framework all the more required it to closely follow that framework in analyzing the specific statute before it.
  • Far from initiating a wholesale retreat from Bruen, the significance of Rahimi is perhaps best understood by what it did not do:
  1. It did not announce any broad new principles. Instead, it applied Bruen faithfully, and its holdings were narrow in scope and limited in applicability. The Court held only that individuals who have been formally adjudicated by a court “to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
  2. All nine justices believed it proper to apply Bruen’s methodology in this case, and none claimed that Rahmi should have been decided under tiers of scrutiny or interest balancing tests.
  3. All nine justices rejected the Government’s overbroad assertion that all persons not governmentally deemed “responsible” may be disarmed.
  4. So-called expert testimony is neither necessary nor helpful to deciding a case using Bruen’s historical methodology. The text and historical context of a law provide the best evidence of its meaning.
  5. The Court did not address whether the Founding era (1791) or the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification (1868) is the relevant period for determining the meaning of the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights (although it relied principally on authorities from the Founding and the early Republic).
  6. Historical laws that are racist or otherwise discriminatory against ethnic, political, or religious minorities cannot be relied on by the government to disarm the people or any subset thereof.
  7. Even lawless individuals like Mr. Rahimi remain part of “the people” and possess Second Amendment rights on the plain-text level.
  8. The Court announced no change to the methodology that it outlined in Bruen.
  • Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi, while substantively routine, is momentous in a different sense: it is a harbinger of the doctrinal steadiness and reinforcement that, until very recently, the courts have uniquely denied the Second Amendment. Rahimi, then, is pathbreaking because it is pedestrian—a sign that the Second Amendment, long the “constitutional orphan” of the Court’s jurisprudence, has been welcomed at last into the constitutional family as an equal member.
 
^ "...until very recently, the courts have uniquely denied the Second Amendment. Rahimi, then, is pathbreaking because it is pedestrian—a sign that the Second Amendment, long the “constitutional orphan” of the Court’s jurisprudence, has been welcomed at last into the constitutional family as an equal member."

Yay.
^ My apologies if that's considered a legal opinion.

It took 233 years to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government's powers."
^ My apologies if that's considered snotnoseyness.

Terry, 230RN

REF (The "orphan" Preamble):
 
Last edited:
... courts have uniquely denied the Second Amendment ... long the “constitutional orphan” of the Court’s jurisprudence, has been welcomed at last into the constitutional family as an equal member.

Yay.
Yay indeed. :)

Second Amendment ... No longer the red-headed stepchild or second class right. :oops:

Bump stock ruling checked ... Chevron Deference ruling checked ... Range ruling pending ... Next is pistol brace followed close by 80% frame or receiver ... then AW/magazine/ammunition/forced reset trigger, etc. etc. 👍

Here we go!
 
Last edited:
Next up: concealed carry permits eliminated in 50 States and all territories and protectorates.

And after that, we'll see the violent crook population diminished by the natural, long-validated process of selective elimination of undesirable individuals.

Moreover, since the acquisiton of firearms would no longer be "infringeable," by NFA and GCA etc., the motivation to steal them would be reduced by that factor.

Whoops! My alarm just went off. Wake up, Terry!

Yawwwwn. Strrrretch. Glad there's some coffee left over from yesterday.... Yicch... that must have been from yesterweek... Blechh.

Terry, 230RN
-------------------------------
Sooner or later, the law output rate will become greater than the Court input rate. Won't we be in a pretty pickle when the lawmakers discover they can pass any law they want to without danger of any Constitutional review?
 
Last edited:
Next up: concealed carry permits eliminated in 50 States and all territories and protectorates.
Heller expanded RKBA of "modern" magazine fed semi-auto firearms at home and Bruen further expanded RKBA outside of home.

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner discuss detaining of CCW permit holder and significance of Bruen ruling precedent to affect future Fourth Amendment cases at 8:30 minute of video

"To find otherwise would consign those validly carrying firearms pursuant to a license to automatic detention because it would effectively presume that gun permits are invalid until proven valid, or that lawfully owned guns are per se contraband until proven otherwise. Such a finding would effectively render armed individuals' Fourth Amendment rights meaningless when they are lawfully carrying firearms."​

0:00 Major Breaking 2A News​
1:42 Why This Is A Major 2A Win!​
3:04 Case Background & Details​
4:40 The Qualified Immunity Issue​
8:04 Timeline of the Stop & Bruen Changes​
10:20 Court Decision & Quote​
12:45 How All This Works Together​
13:40 Thank You!​

Pertinent Fourth Amendment case coming out of 2nd Circuit three judge panel pro-2A ruling affected by Bruen ruling in Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski (NY 30 min detaining of CCW permit holder) - https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/1...concealed-carry-permit-holder-can-go-forward/

"Andrzejewski does not allege that the permit appeared abnormal in any fashion or that Soukaneh engaged in any suspicious or threatening behavior. On the facts before us, Andrzejewski does not provide an articulable reason why he, or any other reasonable officer, could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that Soukaneh possessed his firearm unlawfully in violation of Section 29-38(a). To find otherwise would consign those validly carrying firearms pursuant to a license to automatic detention because it would effectively presume that gun permits are invalid until proven valid, or that lawfully owned guns are per se contraband until proven otherwise. Such a finding would effectively render armed individuals' Fourth Amendment rights meaningless when they are lawfully carrying firearms.​
{The potential effect of Andrzejewski's argument on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment is worth noting, notwithstanding that those rights are not in dispute for purposes of this appeal. While not every lawful possession of a firearm will trigger Second Amendment protection, some will. Regardless of whether the Second Amendment applies, however, individuals lawfully possessing a weapon should not be penalized by having a diminishment of their Fourth Amendment rights.} …​
We [also] conclude that the ubiquity of Fourth Amendment protections established in the plethora of traffic stop cases put Andrzejewski on notice of the protected rights at issue during his de facto arrest of Soukaneh in the absence of probable cause. We have made clear that "a constitutional right to be free from arrest without probable cause, as well as a constitutional right to be free from unreasonably prolonged or intrusive investigative detention" are themselves the clearly established rights that justify the denial of qualified immunity ...​
This is not a close case, about which reasonable officers could differ. The law as it stood at the time of the events in question left no doubt that a person in possession of a firearm and a facially valid permit for that firearm had a clearly established right to be free from the kind of forcible and prolonged detention to which Soukaneh was subjected, absent any objective reason to suspect that the permit was forged or otherwise invalid…. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court to deny Andrzejewski's motion for summary judgment and decline to find that Andrzejewski has qualified immunity as to his detention of Soukaneh…​
In addition to being necessary for Soukaneh's de facto arrest, probable cause was also needed for the warrantless searches of his car. As discussed above, no such probable cause existed. However, another inquiry for determining the lawfulness of a vehicle search during a traffic stop is whether an officer had a reasonable apprehension of danger—which may permit a Terry frisk of the automobile…. [Still,] the presence of a lawful weapon alone does not automatically make someone suspicious, nor a situation dangerous, such as would justify the Terry frisk of a car…​
Andrzejewski attempts to justify the search of the trunk by arguing that the recovery of Soukaneh's lawful gun provided probable cause to search the trunk for other guns under the automobile exception…. Andrzejewski argues that once he retrieved the gun identified by Soukaneh in the driver's side door compartment, he had the requisite probable cause to search the trunk for contraband. But the presence or retrieval of the lawful firearm could not, and did not, provide probable cause to search for contraband in the trunk, absent indicators of criminal activity. Andrzejewski attempts to justify his actions by relying on cases in which the discovery of contraband (e.g., the discovery of drugs) provided a foundation for probable cause for a warrantless search under the automobile exception. But a lawfully owned gun is not per se contraband. Andrzejewski provides no other basis for suspicion that the trunk contained illegal weapons, or any evidence to suggest a crime was afoot to justify his separate intrusion into the trunk… Andrzejewski's warrantless searches of Soukaneh's car and trunk violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches…
 
"The law as it stood at the time...."

Gee whillikers, sounds to simple-minded little me that according to the original law Soukaneh's rights were... what's the word?..."infringed" upon.

But I ain't no lawyer. I just speak English as my native tongue. I wonder what would have happened if in the original, overriding, 18th century law they had used the word "abridged" like in 1A instead of "infringed" like they did in 2A.

I mean, like, y'know, see whut I'm sayin', the inventors of the U. S. of A were pretty sharp cookies and put those ten additions onto the highest law of the land in order to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of governmental powers.

I didn't say that.

They did.

Terry, 230RN

REF:
 
Last edited:
Just a sympathy card... no relevant input from this post...

Live Live said (Post 106) ---with my editions....

"(I grew up in California I moved to Colorado from NYC to breathe free air and now with anti-2A Democrats non-Conservatives in full control of Sacramento Denver, I have seen and experienced first hand what MAJORITY MOB RULE IMPOSING ON MINORITY RIGHTS looks and feels like ... SECOND CLASS CITIZENS with SECOND CLASS RIGHTS and our voice/representation in Sacramento Denver doesn't matter as majority job (sic: "mob"?) rule can do whatever they want and have (done so.)"

Love and sympathy,

Terry
 
Last edited:
Bruen ruling touched on "shall issue" permitting scheme and now a Biden/Harris appointed federal court judge Garnett ruled in favor of 2A for the "shall issue" state of CA, which became "shall issue" after Bruen ruling in 2022. 😁👍

In accordance to Bruen methodology which shifts the burden of proving historical evidence to the state/government, judge wrote:

the State bears the burden of showing whether California’s residency requirements for a CCW license is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation ... the State has not carried its burden at this stage to show that the limitation of CCW licenses to California residents is part of a historical tradition of this Nation.”​

Looks like Bruen methodology is alive and well and indeed has become "binding law" of the land for even Biden/Harris appointee judge to adhere. 👍



SAF Scores Victory in California Non-Resident Carry Case - https://saf.org/saf-scores-victory-in-california-non-resident-carry-case/

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners, in a challenge of California’s ban on non-resident concealed carry, won a victory when a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in the case.​
U.S. District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett, a 2022 Joe Biden appointee, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The state has 21 days to file a response, and within 30 days plaintiffs must “meet and confer” with the state and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department “to submit a proposed order entering the preliminary injunction consistent with the specific findings” made by the court order.​
SAF is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and seven private citizens. The LA County Sheriff’s Office is the main defendant, along with Attorney General Rob Bonta and the La Verne Police Department.​
In her decision, Judge Garnett observed, “the State bears the burden of showing whether California’s residency requirements for a CCW license is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” A few pages later, she notes, “the State has not carried its burden at this stage to show that the limitation of CCW licenses to California residents is part of a historical tradition of this Nation.”​
“Americans do not leave their Second Amendment right to bear arms at the California border,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “California is behind the curve in recognizing that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment since SAF’s Supreme Court victory in the 2010 McDonald ruling.”​
“The writing is clearly on the wall,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “when Judge Garnett noted the Court already found that we are likely to succeed on the merits of our argument that California’s residency requirement for CCW applications is unconstitutional. We are confident our challenge will continue to prevail.”​
 
Last edited:
Bruen's "text, history and tradition" with burden shifting to state/government and tested methodology in Rahimi as "binding law" of the land keeps on giving ruling after ruling, now applied to other bearable arms, not just firearms. 👍

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court strikes down 67-year old switchblade ban citing landmark Supreme Court Bruen decision - https://apnews.com/article/massachu...nd-amendment-bfe1a0e80a8f4092f33d1978cabcca3a
  • Residents of Massachusetts are now free to arm themselves with switchblades after a 67-year-old restriction was struck down following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 landmark decision on gun rights and the Second Amendment.
  • Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court applied new guidance from the Bruen decision, which declared that citizens have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense
  • The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that switchblades aren’t deserving of special restrictions under the Second Amendment
    “Nothing about the physical qualities of switchblades suggests they are uniquely dangerous,” Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote.
  • The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed this history of knives and pocket knives from colonial times in following US Supreme Court guidance [from Bruen] to focus on whether weapon restrictions are consistent with this nation’s “historical tradition” of arms regulation.

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner discuss ruling.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court finds that knives are protected arms under the Second Amendment, in a surprise decision.

0:00 Great 2A Win!​
1:30 State Supreme Court Finding & Caetano Link​
3:40 The Court's Logic & Invention Date Argument​
5:35 Great Quotes From This Case & Burden of Proof​
9:35 All of These Test Are Good For 2A...​
11:50 Thank You!​


And there's more ... :) Open carrying battle-axe in Hawaii? So not UK with their "dangerous" knife ban. 😁

Binikis, surfboards and battle-axes? Hawaii loosens long-strict weapons laws after [Bruen] court ruling - https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-g...nd-amendment-f61c972ebbb28fb21baa28385fa069cd
  • Hawaii’s Waikiki is known for bikinis, shopping and surfboards. But resident Andrew Roberts has recently introduced a different item on evening walks through his neighborhood: a long-poled battle-axe
  • Hawaii Firearms Coalition director has been taking the 15th-century-style European halberd on strolls since May when Hawaii loosened its weapons laws in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 [Bruen] decision that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
  • Bruen decision upended gun laws nationwide, but especially in Hawaii, which long had some of the country’s toughest restrictions
  • Subsequent federal appeals court ruling applied Bruen to the state’s ban on butterfly knives and found it unconstitutional
  • While that case and others related to Hawaii’s weapons laws continue to be litigated, lawmakers responded this year by passing a measure that generally allows deadly or dangerous weapons to be openly carried in public. Previously, anyone found armed with them was subject to immediate arrest.
  • The new law is providing opportunities for some to connect with Native Hawaiian and other cultures through traditional weapons
 
Last edited:
Once again, a CA judge decided to thumb his nose at Bruen.

Ban on automatic knives, switch blades... with blades over 2" are still not legal.

Hopefully they'll get it done in the appellate court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top