In a Twitter thread Jacob Charles makes important points about the consequences of the Supreme Court's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association decision [commonly referred to for convenience by the defendant's name BRUEN].
Rather than engage in the sort of balancing test - weighing whether the ends are achieved by rational means. Instead, writes Clarence Thomas for the majority, a judge reviewing state firearms regulations must "assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical understanding". Only if the regulation meets that test will it not run afoul of the Amendment's "unqualified command".
Deference to a state's historical practice and to the elected leaders judgment is nowhere to be found. Instead defenders of a gun regulation must prove that it is consistent with historical practice. Public health assessments, such as by the Centers for Disease Control, play no part. The matter will be decided not by an assessment of whether a state has acted rationally in exercise of its "police power" to protect the public health. Historical practice, not contemporary nor even a state's longstanding judgments but rather consistency with "the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" will determine the constitutional permissibility of a regulation.
Undeterred by the May 2022 slaughter of nineteen at an Uvalde, Texas elementary school by eighteen year old Salvador Ramos, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth Texas has ruled that the Second Amendment bars Texas's prohibition of 18 - 21 years olds from carrying a pistol in public.
- GWC 8/27/2022
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC. ETAL., v. STEVEN C. MCCRAW, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ET AL.,
Defendants.
4:21-cv-1245-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION
The Second Amendment protects the right of “the people” to keep and
bear arms for self-defense.1 Yet Texas prohibits law-abiding 18-to-20-
year-olds from carrying a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
Does the Second Amendment allow this blanket prohibition?
***
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:
1. To the extent that Texas’s statutory scheme, TEX. PENAL CODE
§ 46.02(a) and TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 411.172(a)(2), (g), (h), (i),
prohibits law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying handguns
for self-defense outside the home based solely on their age, this
statutory scheme violates the Second Amendment, as
incorporated against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Defendants and all their officers, agents, servants, employees,
attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or
participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from enforcing Texas’s statutory scheme against
law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds based solely on their age.
3. This injunction is hereby STAYED for thirty days, or pending
appeal, for the duration of the appellate process.
SO ORDERED on this 25th day of August 2022.
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment