A federal judge for the second time overturned California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.

    • foofy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because that’s what the supreme court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

      They just made that up, but that’s where we’re at now.

    • SilentCal@lemmy.basedcount.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Most recent Supreme Court gun case changed the test for 2nd amendment restrictions to be rooted in historical basis. NYSR&PA v Bruen is the case

      Edit: spelling

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Bruen test is based on three things text, history, and tradition. When evaluating a law that implicates the 2A under it you compare the law to the original intent of the amendment. This intent is found by first reading the text, analyzing historical basis (specifically the founding period till the 1860s), and looking to historical traditions.

      Since the Constitution is the highest law of the land it supercedes all lower laws, making any contrary lower law unlawful.

      Basically the reasoning behind this kind of test to ensure that protections aren’t stripped by redefining or reinterpreting phrases.

      For an example of how that might look in a different context here’s a snippet of the 1A “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Someone 50 years from now could read that an conclude (wrongly) the right to petition the government is a collective right and not something held by each individual. Under a Bruen style test courts must not use that new understanding but the original one intended by it’s writers.

  • ZhenyaPav@lemmy.zhenyapav.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be honest, we need a community for uplifting libertarian news… Maybe it’s just my negativity bias, but there’s just too much news about this world going to shit.

  • SilentCal@lemmy.basedcount.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The State’s historical list also includes, surprisingly, 38 laws that applied only to particular groups, such as slaves, Blacks, or Mulattos. Those laws are not relevant to the magazine prohibition challenged in this case. “And Founding-era statutes that disarmed groups of persons who governments thought might be dangerous because of their race or religion were not considered analogous to modern carry prohibitions on released felons also thought to be dangerous: ‘any such analogy would be far too broad.’”163 Even if they were, this Court would give such discriminatory laws little or no weight."

    SAINT BENITEZ standing up for everyone’s rights

    ruling link

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really. His conclusion is good, but his process is so deeply flawed that if allowed to set precedent our judicial system will manage to get even worse.

        • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would say that the following is the main point of issue:

          […] ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.

          Deciding on laws based on tradition, and historical context has potential to be quite damaging – these decisions should be made based on principle.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well then I regret to inform you that he wasn’t setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen. The precedent already exists on a national scale.

            • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              […] he wasn’t setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen.

              Indeed. It is rather unfortunate.