Baird v. Bonta reversed and remanded

[ConditionThree]

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...7/23-15016.pdf

Change is coming. Court instructed to expedite.

In the words of Gavin Newsom, "Whether you like it or not..."

 

[color of law]

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...7/23-15016.pdf

Change is coming. Court instructed to expedite.

In the words of Gavin Newsom, "Whether you like it or not..."

Your link is bad.

Try this.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/09/07/23-15016.pdf

 

[BB62]

"...California bears the burden to identify a well-established and representative historical analogue to its open-carry ban that was in force when the Second or Fourteenth Amendment was ratified."

BULL!

The Second Amendment means what it meant when IT was ratified, not when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

 

[ConditionThree]

"...California bears the burden to identify a well-established and representative historical analogue to its open-carry ban that was in force when the Second or Fourteenth Amendment was ratified."

BULL!

The Second Amendment means what it meant when IT was ratified, not when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

No bull. Read the quoted bit again, and ask yourself what the second amendment meant betwèen 1791 and 1866. California is obligated to show long standing law that banned open caŕry during that time period. They can't, because it didn't exist.

 

[color of law]

No bull. Read the quoted bit again, and ask yourself what the second amendment meant betwèen 1791 and 1866. California is obligated to show long standing law that banned open caŕry during that time period. They can't, because it didn't exist.

No.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the 1791 interpretation of the Second Amendment.

James Madison, the father of the Second Amendment, died in June 1836. Any interpretation of the second amendment after his death could only be determined from his writings. The Bruen court made the two following statements.

[T]he public understanding of the right to keep and bear arms in both 1791 and 1868 was, for all relevant purposes, the same with respect to public carry.

[In] the century leading up to the Second Amendment and in the first decade after its adoption, there is no historical basis for concluding that the pre-existing right enshrined in the Second Amendment permitted broad prohibitions on all forms of public carry.

And all that the Supreme Court said in the McDonald decision is that “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” That’s it, nothing more. The interpretation of the Second Amendment was not changed from the 1791 meaning, period.

 

[cato]

Light at the end of the tunnel! (Provided the Bruen 6 remain in good health and Roberts doesn’t get weak knees)