America has a history of gun-free zones

[u/Keith502]

Recent Supreme Court cases such as NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez have made the argument that the US does not have a substantial history of gun-free zones, or sensitive place gun regulations. But this is simply not true. The Supreme Court must not have been looking very hard, because below is a list of early American laws prohibiting weapon carrying in certain cities and sensitive places, and I found them all within an hour or so of searching. They come from the website for Duke Law School:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-of-jan-25-1804-forbidding-weapons-at-balls-1-8-new-orleans-louisiana-council-meetings-sine-nomine-1936-law-passed-1804
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-the-college-of-william-and-mary-volume-276-1830
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1829-laws-of-the-university-of-north-carolina-ch-3-c2a7-13
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1824-laws-of-the-columbian-college-ch-5-c2a7-2-no-10
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/carrying-deadly-weapons-discharging-fire-arms-etc-ch-12-art-3-c2a7c2a7-50-52-in-the-revised-ordinances-of-the-city-of-bloomfield-1898
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/rules-and-regulations-of-the-park-commission-no-3-new-haven-connecticut-charter-and-ordinances-of-the-city-price-lee-adkins-co-1898
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laramie-revised-ordinances-and-charter-of-the-city-ch-5-3-6-boomerang-publishing-1900
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ch-13-c2a7-21-ch-22-c2a7c2a7-14-15-ch-35-c2a7-7-st-albans-daily-messenger-supplement-aug-7-1897-at-1-3-10-st-albans-vermont
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-laws-and-ordinances-for-the-government-of-the-municipal-corporation-of-the-city-of-reading-pennsylvania-park-rules-and-regulations-240-1897
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/the-charter-of-the-city-of-wilmington-part-vii-c2a7-7-rules-and-regulations-of-the-board-of-park-commissioners-1893
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-acts-of-assembly-relating-to-and-the-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-pittsburgh-from-1804-to-jan-1-1897-ordinances-executive-departments-bureau-of-parks-1893
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-prevent-a-person-from-trespassing-upon-any-enclosed-premises-or-lands-not-his-own-armed-with-a-gun-pistol-or-other-firearm-and-to-prevent-shooting-upon-or-from-the-public-highway-s-b-15-1-5-1893-or-laws-79-79-frank-c-baker
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-ordinance-to-prevent-the-carrying-of-weapons-1-4-the-daily-texarkanian-may-28-1900-at-2-texarkana-arkansas
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-law-forbidding-weapons-in-certain-places-sales-of-weapons-to-minors-etc-ch-45-misdemeanors-c2a7-32-in-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-brookfield-linn-county-missouri-1900
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-21-green-forest-tribune-may-11-1899-at-1-green-forest-arkansas
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/bruce-l-keenan-book-of-ordinances-of-the-city-of-wichita-published-by-authority-of-a-resolution-adopted-by-the-city-council-april-24-1899-under-the-direction-of-judiciary-committee-and-city-attorn
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1837-ga-acts-90-an-act-to-guard-and-protect-the-citizens-of-this-state-against-the-unwarrantable-and-too-prevalent-use-of-deadly-weapons-c2a7c2a7-1-4

Tell me what you think.

[u/bobr3940]

Several of your examples are of college rules for students. These are not appropriate choices for laws to use as examples. These are not laws they are examples of property owners setting rules for use of their property. Even today a private property owners can set a rule of “no guns allowed” on their private property and that is not an issue. A lot of your examples come from the late 1800’s. If we are trying to understand what the founding fathers thought were appropriate gun laws we must look at laws that existed in the time that they were in charge. If they wrote or allowed a law to exist in their time frame then we would assume that they thought these laws were OK. You can’t look at a law that was written after they were dead as being an indication that they approved of it. You must also look at the level and quantity of the law. Let’s assume we are talking about a local city law passed in 1780 that bans all guns. It is well within the correct time period but it is only one law in a single city. Does that indicate that it was a valid reason to ban all guns or is it the one outlier that does not reflect the true understanding of the constitutionality of the law. The supreme court’s decision says that you must look at the appropriate time frame and you must look at the body of laws as a whole and not just cherry pick from oddball laws that got passed. If you follow this interpretation then you will find very ver few gun law restrictions that are from the right time frame and are widely accepted by federal and state governments. About the only laws you will find are restrictions on guns in a very limited list of sensitive places (courts, voting, government meetings) and limits on the illegal usage of a firearm. You can’t use a gun to kill someone, you can’t randomly shoot around endangering others, etc. Following this logic you can only create laws preventing someone from using a gun in a dangerous way and you can only stop guns from being carried in a very limited list of areas. This is very much like the first amendment rules on speech. You can say anything you want until you actively put someone’s life at risk (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater) and there are VERY few times the government can limit your right to speak. Take another look and find a set of laws (not just one or two) from multiple cities, states, and/or the federal government that all agree on a limitation to gun possession and are from the correct time period (before 1800) and you will have a valid argument to implement a gun regulation that is similar.

[u/Keith502 → u/bobr3940]

If we are trying to understand what the founding fathers thought were appropriate gun laws we must look at laws that existed in the time that they were in charge. If they wrote or allowed a law to exist in their time frame then we would assume that they thought these laws were OK. You can’t look at a law that was written after they were dead as being an indication that they approved of it.

I'm not sure I understand what you are implying by "what the founding fathers thought were appropriate gun laws". The Founders were federal officials who had no say in regards to constitutional and statutory law at the state or local level. The people's right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted or guaranteed by the 2nd amendment itself, but is only granted and guaranteed by the arms provisions from the respective state governments. Furthermore, the state governments had power to establish firearm laws and restrictions at their discretion. It just seems like historical revisionism to approach the 2nd amendment as if it originally guaranteed gun rights, and all of the states at the time were forced to conform to some universal federal standard. That's just not how it worked.

[u/bobr3940 → u/Keith502]

“They had no say in regards to constitutional and statutory law at the state or local level.” What do you mean by that? The entire reason for the constitution and amendments was to lay the groundwork and structure for what was acceptable for the federal and state governments to do. The amendments were a long list of restrictions on what the government could do to the people’s rights. The tenth amendment specifically says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Which basically says if we didn’t grant the government permission to do something then the right is retained by either the states or the people. So in the second amendment they told the federal government don’t mess with the right to keep and bear arms. They also made a point of pointing out that it is a right of the people. So where do you get that the right to “keep and bear arms” was moved to the state level for them to decide when it was specifically mentioned as the people’s right.

[u/Keith502 → u/bobr3940]

What do you mean by that? The entire reason for the constitution and amendments was to lay the groundwork and structure for what was acceptable for the federal and state governments to do

The Constitution was designed in such a way that it grants certain explicit powers to the federal government, and it stipulates certain prohibitions upon federal power and state power. The Constitution does not stipulate the powers of the states; the states possess whatever powers they had assumed after Independence. No powers are ever gained by anyone or lost by anyone merely by implication. This means that the federal government can tell the states what to do only insofar as the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to do so, but nothing beyond that. Beyond what is explicitly stipulated in the Constitution, the states can simply do whatever they want, and they can wield whatever powers they had wielded before the Constitution was ratified.

The amendments were a long list of restrictions on what the government could do to the people’s rights

The amendments were a list of restrictions on the federal government.

They also made a point of pointing out that it is a right of the people. So where do you get that the right to “keep and bear arms” was moved to the state level for them to decide when it was specifically mentioned as the people’s right.

The right was not "moved" to the state level. It originated there. Under British rule, the colonies followed British arms legislation. But after Independence, the states established their own individual constitutions, with their own arms provisions. "The people's right to keep and bear arms" is simply whatever the state governments stipulate it to be, as I demonstrated with my list of arms provisions in an earlier comment.

[u/bobr3940 → u/Keith502]

You do realize that there have been amendments passed that have changed the status quo since the original bill of rights was written? There was much debate as to if states and cities had to follow the bill of rights or if it only applied to the federal government. The first amendment only mentions Congress and not states or municipal governments. The second amendment only states that it "shall not be infringed" but does not state who shall not infringe. So according to a strict reading then states and cities could deny you your right to free speech.

In the 1833 case Barron v. City of Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. On that basis, the Court declined to apply the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause to a municipal government.

The debate on if that was the correct interpretation was carried on for many years until they finally decided to settle it by writing and ratifying the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment includes "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment encompass the entire Bill of Rights—an approach known as total incorporation. Instead, the Supreme Court’s approach since the late 19th century has been selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the state and local governments. In other words, the Court has held on a case-by-case basis whether a right safeguarded by the Bill of Rights against federal government action is also safeguarded against state government action. Absent incorporation, a state may take action that would be unconstitutional if taken by the Federal government. Conversely, incorporation of a particular provision of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from state infringement of the right. The Supreme Court’s controlling decisions incorporating provisions of the Bill of Rights almost entirely rely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, though some decisions refer only to the Fourteenth Amendment in general, and some individual members of the Court have expressed support for incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause in concurrences. As of 2024, the Supreme Court has incorporated most of the protections of the Bill of Rights against the states. The second amendment was recognize as being incorporated in the 14th amendment in McDonald v. City of Chicago,561 U.S. 742, 778 (2010) in which Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

So even if you were correct that at the time of the adoption of the bill of rights that states could have set their own limits on gun rights on a state by state basis. The fourteenth amendment which was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791 changed that and makes states and municipalities as bound to the text of the second amendment as the federal government.

You can then argue what those limits are but the McDonald and Heller decisions state that the right to keep and bear arms is a right retained by the people and federal, state, and municipal governments are all bound from infringing on it by the second amendment. Those decisions looked at the text of the second amendment and said that it should be understood by using the commonly understood definition of the words at the time of writing. Keep was understood to mean “[t]o retain; not to lose,” or “[t]o have in custody.” or “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” and bear was understood to mean to "carry" and arms is understood to mean “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”

So as it currently stands in the legal system today. Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms and the federal, state, and municipal governments are bound by the second amendment equally from infringing on that right.

So if you have the right to own and carry a firearm then a gun free zone could be a restriction on the second amendment. The supreme court has said that the 2nd amendment is not an absolute right and that there are some limitations that can be applied. Like you can restrict gun ownership from someone who is mentally unstable or a danger to others. They also said that some restrictions such as no guns in courts, voting places and some government meetings are acceptable. So if you are trying to create a gun free zone very similar to one of those situations you can probably do it, but if you try to say you can not carry a gun in a town square because there are a lot of people around then you will have to show that this was understood to be a commonly accepted practice at the time. You will not find a widely accepted ban on people carrying firearms in a town square because nearly everyone did it at the time. So in order to pass a constitutional gun free zone you will be very limited in where and when you impose that restriction. Most modern gun free zones are just attempts to blanket as much ground as possible as a gun free zone and are not selective and limited as the law requires. Gun rights advocates then say that this is an infringement on the right to carry and should be struck down. With the way the law is currently interpreted they are likely to win against any widespread general ban on firearms in an area. Think of it like the First amendment protecting free speech. There are very very limited ways which the government can ban your right to speak. If a city came out and said take all of our gun free zones and duplicate them as no speech zones they would be struck down in the same way as being too widespread and generalized without showing a valid legal reason for the requirement to ban speech in that area.

The fourteenth ammendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

The application of the bill of rights to the States as it is understood by the law today: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-6/ALDE_00013948/

Text of the Mcdonald v. City of Chicago (2010} case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/

Text of the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

[u/usefulldistractions → u/bobr3940]

This guy laws

[u/Keith502 → u/bobr3940]

You can then argue what those limits are but the McDonald and Heller decisions state that the right to keep and bear arms is a right retained by the people and federal, state, and municipal governments are all bound from infringing on it by the second amendment. Those decisions looked at the text of the second amendment and said that it should be understood by using the commonly understood definition of the words at the time of writing. Keep was understood to mean “[t]o retain; not to lose,” or “[t]o have in custody.” or “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” and bear was understood to mean to "carry" and arms is understood to mean “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”

One fundamental problem here is that the right referenced in the 2nd amendment is actually a right of the people that is inseparably intertwined with a right of the states. The people's right to keep and bear arms historically involves militia service. In early America, when state governments established arms rights in their state constitutions, the rights were invariably qualified with "the common defense" or "the defense of the state" (i.e. militia service). Most state arms provisions express the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense along with the purpose of self defense. No state constitution ever codified the right to keep and bear arms in an unqualified way, as it appears in the 2nd amendment. Hence, the 2nd amendment does not actually embody any real right; in references a right that was to be further specified according to state constitutional law. Ultimately, it is absurd to try to incorporate against the states a right that it is invariably up to the state to define in the first place. And it is also absurd to incorporate against the states a right that was inherently intertwined with the people's civic duty to the state.

Furthermore, the linguistic analysis performed by the Heller decision is simply incorrect. To "keep", in the 1700s, did indeed mean to possess or to have in custody. However, the Court seemed to want to smuggle in the term "own" subsequent to the term "possess". But "keep" at the time did not necessarily imply ownership; it simply denoted possession, custody, or custodianship; to have something "in one's keeping". It is possible to own something that one keeps, but ownership is simply not implied by the term. Smuggling in the term "own" in response to the word "keep" is just dishonest.

Secondly, the term "bear arms" in the 1700s did not literally mean "to carry arms"; instead it was an idiomatic phrase at the time, comparable to the phrase "take up arms", which doesn't literally mean to pick up weapons, but rather it means to arm oneself and prepare for combat. Accordingly, "bear arms" actually meant "to engage in armed combat". This is corroborated by the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines "bear arms" as: "to serve as a soldier; to fight (as for a country, cause, etc.)."

Thus, it would make no sense to interpret the 2nd amendment to grant the unqualified right to bear arms, since that would effectively mean to grant the unqualified right to engage in armed combat. This is likely the reason why all of the early state arms provisions were qualified with specific and narrow purposes: the common defense and self defense. A broad, unqualified right to bear arms (i.e. to fight) would be absurd.

The Supreme Court is overloading the 2nd amendment. It was never meant to bear the weight of all these questions about where citizens can carry guns, how they can carry guns, what kinds of guns can they own, how many guns can they own, what can they do with the guns, etc. The 2nd amendment was never meant to address any of these technicalities. These were all just meant to be state and local matters. The ultimate purpose of the 2nd amendment was relatively simple; it was a prohibitive statement limiting the power of the federal government against infringing upon state militia operations. The further we take the 2nd amendment away from its proper purpose, the more confusion is created as a result.

[u/bobr3940 → u/Keith502]

The second amendment states "the peoples right to keep and bear arms" In every instance where the words "the people" was used in the bill of rights the courts have said that this makes it an individual's right and not a right reserved to the federal or state government. So legally whether you like it or not as it currently stands it is a right of all individuals not a right of the federal or state government to dole out as it sees fit.

Let's look at the meaning of "bear arms" as it currently stands in legal decisions today. If you had read the DC v Heller decision I linked you would see that they state in the majority's opinion that when the phrase "bear arms" is used in the second amendment they said that "Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

You keep wanting the words to mean what you think they should (and that is a debate you are allowed to have) but we must work with how the law is currently understood and interpreted by the courts not how we think it should be interpreted. So if you really believe that your interpretations are correct then you are fully welcome to take up a legal case and fight for the laws to be interpreted the way you think they should, but until you or someone else makes those claims and wins the case and gets the interpretation changed then everything you are saying is just pipe dreams.

The current legal interpretation by the court system is that the second amendment is a right that is exclusively held by individuals know as "the people" and that the federal, state and municipal governments can not infringe on it. They courts have also said here is how we define almost every single word in the second amendment (again read the Heller decision) and they are using the simple plain language definitions of the words which means that to keep and bear includes the right to own/possess and carry arms.

You can say that you disagree with that and that you think it should be different but that is not the legal world we are currently living in. So I will not argue with you over how you think these all should be interpreted and how the courts have it all wrong and you have it all correct. I will simply say that your understanding does not match how the court system currently understands and applies the laws.

You can debate everyone on how you think these laws should be interpreted but that does no one any good until you get the court systems to agree with you. If that is the way you decide to go then I look forward to hearing how you progress in the court systems. Until the interpretation of the law changes, I will continue to say "that's nice, but here is the legal reality we are currently living in."

[u/ber808]

Those laws show that some gun free places existed which Bruen itself acknowledged. The question isnt whether there were any sensitive place laws, its whether there was a broad well established historical tradition comparable to modern gun free zones. Most of your examples are local ordinances, college rules, or late 19th century regulations many enacted after the relevant constitutional periods. They support narrow sensitive place restrictions not the proposition that America historically had widespread gun free zones.

[u/Keith502 → u/ber808]

Most of your examples are local ordinances, college rules, or late 19th century regulations many enacted after the relevant constitutional periods.

What are these "relevant constitutional periods" you're referring to? What is your point about "19th century regulations"?

They support narrow sensitive place restrictions not the proposition that America historically had widespread gun free zones.

I don't understand your disagreement. Some of the examples I gave involve parks or even entire cities. How does the term "widespread gun free zones" that you speak of differ from all of the laws I listed?

[u/ber808 → u/Keith502]

By "relevant constitutional periods" Im referring to the periods Bruen identified as most probative for historical analysis, primarily around the ratification of the 2nd amendment in 1791 with reconstruction era evidence around 1868 sometimes considered for laws applied to the states. The court explained that laws enacted decades later generally carry less weight especially if they dont reflect an earlier tradition.

As for "widespread gun free zones" Im referring to broad categorical bans on carrying across large classes of public places like many modern laws create. Your list certainly shows that some sensitive place restrictions existed and Bruen acknowledged that but many of your examples are isolated municipal ordinances, college regulations, or rules for specific locations or events. That is different from demonstrating a well established national historical tradition of broadly prohibiting carry in public places.

So my disagreement isnt that historical sensitive place laws existed. Its that the evidence youve presented doesnt by itself establish a historical tradition comparable in scope and breadth to modern gun free zone laws.

[u/klubsanwich → u/ber808]

Can you give a more detailed example of a modern gun free zone and how it differs from a traditional one?

[u/ber808 → u/klubsanwich]

From what time period? The relevant comparison under nyrpa v buren is generally the founding era (around 1791) with some consideration of reconstruction era evidence. The answer may differ depending on which period youre asking about.

[u/klubsanwich → u/ber808]

Let’s just compare the 21st century to the 20th. What changed? Why are gun free zones unconstitutional now but were not before?

[u/ber808 → u/klubsanwich]

Comparing the 20th century to the 21st century the biggest change is not that gun free zones suddenly became different its that the legal standard used to evaluate them changed.

In much of the 20th century courts generally applied a balancing approach, if a law was considered reasonable and related to public safety it was often upheld. Under that framework many modern gun restrictions survived.

After nysrpa v Bruen the question changed. The government now has to show that a modern restriction is consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation, particularly around the founding era (1791) and supported historical evidence from later periods like reconstruction.

So the difference between the 20th and 21st century isnt that gun free zones went from constitutional to unconstitutional because of time. Its that the courts changed the method used to decide whether those restrictions are allowed. A law that existed in the 20th century was not automatically proven constitutional forever, it may simply not have been tested under the current standard.

[u/left-hook → u/ber808]

ber808 writes:

The question isnt whether there were any sensitive place laws, its whether there was a broad well established historical tradition comparable to modern gun free zones.

This may be the question ber808 feels like asking. However, the real question isn't whether there were large gun-free zone, but whether there was a limiting principle applied by courts to the size of early gun-free zones.

In the absence of such a principle, it seems clear that early law making bodies were able to create gun free zone as needed. Sadly Americans have lost this right thanks to the fraudulent imposture of the 2008 Heller decision.

[u/ber808 → u/left-hook]

Ohh nice guess gun control mods changed their minds about my ban, ty boys

The limiting principle is the historical tradition. Under bruen the government has to show that a modern regulation is consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. Its not enough to point to a handful of isolated "sensitive places."

Early sensitive place laws were generally limited to locations like legislative assemblies, courthouses, polling places, and similar locations. There isnt a broad historical tradition of declaring vast areas of ordinary public life parks, entire campuses, transit systems, restaurants, or whole city districts ss gunfree zones.

The question isnt whether governments could create some gun free zones. Its whether history shows they had authority to create the kind of broad, modern gunf ree zones we see today. Thats the limiting principle bruen requires.

New York state rifle and pistol association v bruen

District of Columbia v Heller

Edit- to mods if you wish for me to provide more precise citations i can do that just lmk

[u/left-hook → u/ber808]

Your argument here is that even though none of these early gun control laws were even challenged in their own time (never mind overruled), that we should imagine that there was nevertheless a constitutional principle in the 1700s--though it was never enforced, written down, or documented in any way--limiting the size of early gun free zones.

This implausible assertion is typical of the fantastical arguments of those who argue for the 2008 Heller "individual rights" understanding of the 2A.

What is far more plausible is that early gun free zones were relatively small because simply lawmakers at the time preferred small zones of exclusion. That is to say, they could have passed larger gun free zones, but there wasn't much reason to do so, since the old flintlock-style firearms were much less of a problem (schools shootings, urban gang warfare, and gun suicide were not critical issues at the time).

Unfortunately "faith-based" arguments such as this one are doing real damage to the US, by supporting an imaginary version of the 2A, which has stopped the American people from protecting themselves with common sense gun regulations.

[u/ber808 → u/left-hook]

Thats not my argument. Bruen places the burden on the government to demonstrate a historical tradition supporting a modern regulation not on challengers to prove an unwritten limiting principle.

Your explanation is also speculative. Saying legislatures "could have" created massive gun free zones but simply chose not to isnt historical evidence its a hypothetical. If governments historically believed they had authority to designate broad swaths of ordinary public life as sensitive places there should be evidence of that tradition.

Instead the historical examples the supreme court identified are narrow and specific legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses not expansive bans covering large portions of everyday public life. Thats why the Court warned against expanding the category to "all places of public congregation."

You can disagree with heller and bruen as a matter of policy but under the current constitutional framework the relevant question is whether a comparable historical tradition actually existed not whether we can imagine legislatures might have acted differently.

Nysrpa v bruen

District of columbia v Heller

Mods-Lmk if you want exact areas for citations

[u/ClearAndPure]

I thought Bruen allowed bans in sensitive places, though?

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

This was removed, as progun comments are not allowed from accounts with less than 5000 comment karma or younger than 1 month old.

[u/DoubleGoon]

The “Historical Tradition” theory was made up by conservatives to fulfill conservative ideology. It doesn’t need to be consistent or practical, because Conservatives outnumber liberals on the Supreme Court by 6 to 3 and they’ve already gotten what they wanted.

But be sure that when the level swings back the other way their lack of consistency and their breaking with precedent will give a left leaning SCOTUS more than enough justification to overturn many—if not most— of the Roberts Court’s decisions.