The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘There is good news in Friday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi: The Court concluded that at least some people subject to domestic violence restraining orders do not have a categorical right to own a firearm, and upheld a law preventing them from doing so. While Rahimi produced a maze of concurring and dissenting opinions, eight justices ultimately agreed that a man who literally threatened to shoot the mother of his child should not be armed.

But there’s also bad news: Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent.

It does nothing to clear up the mass confusion created by the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that all gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That decision threw gun regulation throughout the United States into chaos and prompted an unusually long list of complaints from sitting judges.

In Rahimi, the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. Yet, while the Fifth Circuit has a history of taking liberties with the law to achieve conservative results, its decision in the Rahimi case was correctly decided under Bruen.

As Justice Clarence Thomas persuasively argues in dissent, Bruen compelled the Fifth Circuit to rule that domestic abusers do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. Friday’s decision in Rahimi essentially carves out an exception to Bruen that is just large enough to allow Zackey Rahimi, the cartoonishly violent individual at the center of this case, to be disarmed. But Roberts’s opinion does little else. And it provides absolutely no meaningful guidance to lower court judges who are struggling to apply the vague “historical tradition” test announced in Bruen.’

The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi

US v. Rahimi is completely incoherent, and it faults lower courts for the justices' own incompetence.

www.vox.com

The correct decision for the wrong reason, inconsistent with the test in Bruen this very Court established just two years ago, motivated by fear of a political backlash, undermining the legitimacy of ‘historical analogue’ doctrine.

Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent because ‘originalism’ is failed, wrongheaded conservative legal dogma; indeed, the conservative justices’ bizarre attempts to justify the ruling is more living Constitution than ‘originalist.’

And future Second Amendment cases will be suspect as a consequence, with more likely carveouts to come and Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly confusing and inconsistent.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Harry Dresden]

‘There is good news in Friday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi: The Court concluded that at least some people subject to domestic violence restraining orders do not have a categorical right to own a firearm, and upheld a law preventing them from doing so. While Rahimi produced a maze of concurring and dissenting opinions, eight justices ultimately agreed that a man who literally threatened to shoot the mother of his child should not be armed.

But there’s also bad news: Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent.

It does nothing to clear up the mass confusion created by the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that all gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That decision threw gun regulation throughout the United States into chaos and prompted an unusually long list of complaints from sitting judges.

In Rahimi, the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. Yet, while the Fifth Circuit has a history of taking liberties with the law to achieve conservative results, its decision in the Rahimi case was correctly decided under Bruen.

As Justice Clarence Thomas persuasively argues in dissent, Bruen compelled the Fifth Circuit to rule that domestic abusers do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. Friday’s decision in Rahimi essentially carves out an exception to Bruen that is just large enough to allow Zackey Rahimi, the cartoonishly violent individual at the center of this case, to be disarmed. But Roberts’s opinion does little else. And it provides absolutely no meaningful guidance to lower court judges who are struggling to apply the vague “historical tradition” test announced in Bruen.’

The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi

US v. Rahimi is completely incoherent, and it faults lower courts for the justices' own incompetence.

www.vox.com

The correct decision for the wrong reason, inconsistent with the test in Bruen this very Court established just two years ago, motivated by fear of a political backlash, undermining the legitimacy of ‘historical analogue’ doctrine.

Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent because ‘originalism’ is failed, wrongheaded conservative legal dogma; indeed, the conservative justices’ bizarre attempts to justify the ruling is more living Constitution than ‘originalist.’

And future Second Amendment cases will be suspect as a consequence, with more likely carveouts to come and Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly confusing and inconsistent.

"utterly incoherent"......we have a poster here named jones who is like that.....

 

[pknopp]

I'm not sure what is inconsistent. The Constitution is clear that rights can be removed through due process.

 

[1srelluc]

Meh, a bad but not unexpected decision.

The leftists better enjoy this one because next week they are gonna get pounded in the ass.

 

[pknopp]

Meh, a bad but not unexpected decision.

The leftists better enjoy this one because next week they are gonna get pounded in the ass.

What makes it a bad decision?

 

[JohnDB]

‘There is good news in Friday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi: The Court concluded that at least some people subject to domestic violence restraining orders do not have a categorical right to own a firearm, and upheld a law preventing them from doing so. While Rahimi produced a maze of concurring and dissenting opinions, eight justices ultimately agreed that a man who literally threatened to shoot the mother of his child should not be armed.

But there’s also bad news: Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent.

It does nothing to clear up the mass confusion created by the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that all gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That decision threw gun regulation throughout the United States into chaos and prompted an unusually long list of complaints from sitting judges.

In Rahimi, the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. Yet, while the Fifth Circuit has a history of taking liberties with the law to achieve conservative results, its decision in the Rahimi case was correctly decided under Bruen.

As Justice Clarence Thomas persuasively argues in dissent, Bruen compelled the Fifth Circuit to rule that domestic abusers do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. Friday’s decision in Rahimi essentially carves out an exception to Bruen that is just large enough to allow Zackey Rahimi, the cartoonishly violent individual at the center of this case, to be disarmed. But Roberts’s opinion does little else. And it provides absolutely no meaningful guidance to lower court judges who are struggling to apply the vague “historical tradition” test announced in Bruen.’

The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi

US v. Rahimi is completely incoherent, and it faults lower courts for the justices' own incompetence.

www.vox.com

The correct decision for the wrong reason, inconsistent with the test in Bruen this very Court established just two years ago, motivated by fear of a political backlash, undermining the legitimacy of ‘historical analogue’ doctrine.

Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent because ‘originalism’ is failed, wrongheaded conservative legal dogma; indeed, the conservative justices’ bizarre attempts to justify the ruling is more living Constitution than ‘originalist.’

And future Second Amendment cases will be suspect as a consequence, with more likely carveouts to come and Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly confusing and inconsistent.

Its not inconsistent....you just don't like it.

There are better ways to restrict illegal gun use than by the manner currently being used....just nobody wants to do it.

Let's put it this way....a huge percentage of domestic violence is done by police themselves....usually hushed up and out of the justice system hands because it's automatic unemployment for police to have a ban on possessing firearms. (Air guns are not approved even though they are just as effective for most police situations)

But....
If there were laws concerning mental health evaluations that could limit firearm possessions to only mentally healthy people....but it's a scary slope to go on.

Especially in this current climate of a weaponized DOJ.

 

[1srelluc]

What makes it a bad decision?

The arbitrary nature of it.....It's completely open-ended for how long some activist judge or even a magistrate could deny you your gun rights.

 

[pknopp]

The arbitrary nature of it.....It's completely open-ended for how long some activist judge or even a magistrate could deny you your gun rights.

Prison can be open ended also.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

‘There is good news in Friday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi: The Court concluded that at least some people subject to domestic violence restraining orders do not have a categorical right to own a firearm, and upheld a law preventing them from doing so. While Rahimi produced a maze of concurring and dissenting opinions, eight justices ultimately agreed that a man who literally threatened to shoot the mother of his child should not be armed.

But there’s also bad news: Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent.

It does nothing to clear up the mass confusion created by the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that all gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That decision threw gun regulation throughout the United States into chaos and prompted an unusually long list of complaints from sitting judges.

In Rahimi, the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. Yet, while the Fifth Circuit has a history of taking liberties with the law to achieve conservative results, its decision in the Rahimi case was correctly decided under Bruen.

As Justice Clarence Thomas persuasively argues in dissent, Bruen compelled the Fifth Circuit to rule that domestic abusers do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. Friday’s decision in Rahimi essentially carves out an exception to Bruen that is just large enough to allow Zackey Rahimi, the cartoonishly violent individual at the center of this case, to be disarmed. But Roberts’s opinion does little else. And it provides absolutely no meaningful guidance to lower court judges who are struggling to apply the vague “historical tradition” test announced in Bruen.’

The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi

US v. Rahimi is completely incoherent, and it faults lower courts for the justices' own incompetence.

www.vox.com

The correct decision for the wrong reason, inconsistent with the test in Bruen this very Court established just two years ago, motivated by fear of a political backlash, undermining the legitimacy of ‘historical analogue’ doctrine.

Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent because ‘originalism’ is failed, wrongheaded conservative legal dogma; indeed, the conservative justices’ bizarre attempts to justify the ruling is more living Constitution than ‘originalist.’

And future Second Amendment cases will be suspect as a consequence, with more likely carveouts to come and Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly confusing and inconsistent.

I really appreciate you posting this. I saw something on the news about it being a victory for domestic violence victims but the advocate was not exactly rejoicing. As a result of your posting this thread I did some research and boy do I have a lot to say on THIS particular matter.

We know that the Supreme Court gets things wrong from time to time. And when they do, people suffer until some other ruling by them or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution nullifies (supersedes?) their most current bad decision.

I thought all of our Constitutional rights were to remain intact unless and/or until we forfeit them by things such as being convicted of certain crimes. The message that the lower court sent is just further proof that when men commit acts of domestic violence, what's best for them often takes precedence over what's best for their victims who can often include their offspring as well.

So the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals thought THIS guy was someone whose constitutional right to possession of his firearm(s) should remain intact? He was CONVICTED of the crimes of which he was accused so does anyone have any idea of WHY specifically in this case so many people fought so hard to ensure his 2nd amendment rights were not violated when it seems that his conviction alone (and all 5 of the previous firearm violations) should have ensured he lost his gun rights?

I mean why would ANYONE believe that someone who doesn't care that's it's against the law to engage in domestic violence, or assault and shoot at people for minor "perceived" offenses, including a witness to his domestic violence acts, is ever going to care about a law that says he can't keep his firearms? And are they seriously trying to say that a "one-size-fits-all" is acceptable in the current state & age we live?

[snipped]​

Zackey Rahimi was issued a civil restraining order by a Texas state court on February 5, 2020; the order barred him from engaging in certain harassment-related behaviors towards his ex-girlfriend or her child, as well as owning firearms. The order came after an incident in December 2019 where Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot following an argument. Noticing that a bystander had witnessed the altercation, Rahimi fired a gun at the witness. Despite his prohibition on owning firearms and communicating with his girlfriend, Rahimi repeatedly defied the order. In May 2020, Rahimi was arrested after approaching her house in the middle of the night. In November 2020, he was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after threatening another woman with a gun.​

​

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi took part in five shootings. First, he shot at a man who purchased drugs from him after the man spoke disrespectfully to him; Rahimi fired into the man's house with an AR-15. Second, the day after the prior shooting, Rahimi was involved in a traffic collision and fired at the other driver. Following this, he fled the scene of the crash, returned, fired more shots at the other driver, then fled again. Third, three days after the prior shooting, Rahimi fired a gun into the air while in the presence of children. Fourth, some weeks after the prior incident, a truck on the highway flashed its headlights at Rahimi when he sped past the truck; Rahimi then followed the truck off the highway and fired shots at another car that had been following the truck. Fifth, Rahimi fired a gun into the air at a fast food restaurant after a friend's credit card was declined.​

​

Suspecting Rahimi of these shootings, officers executed a search warrant at his home, discovering a rifle and a pistol he admitted to possessing. Officers additionally found ammunition, magazines, and a copy of the protective order. He was charged and convicted in a federal district court of unlawful firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)[6], which prohibits individuals from owning firearms if they are "subject to a court order that restrains [them] from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner."[3][4]​

​

Domestic violence protective orders related to bans on possessing a firearm became enacted by the 1968 Gun Control Act.[7][8] However, the federal law which enforced the restrained order in question was the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.[8]​

​

Procedural history​

Rahimi appealed his conviction, bringing a facial challenge to U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Second Amendment grounds. The court rejected his challenge,[a] and Rahimi appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel for the Fifth Circuit initially upheld Section 922(g)(8), but while Rahimi's petition for a rehearing was pending, the Supreme Court decided Bruen, causing the panel to withdraw its opinion.[9] The parties filed supplementary briefs and re-argued the case before a new panel of three judges, two appointed by President Donald Trump and the third by President Ronald Reagan.[10]​

​

On February 2, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) as unconstitutional, barring it from being enforced in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.[3] The Fifth Circuit withdrew the panel's opinion and filed a revised opinion on March 2, 2023, reaching the same result.[10] On March 17, 2023, the United States Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision and allow the federal law criminalizing firearm ownership by people under domestic violence restraining orders to stand.[11]​

​

Opinions of the Fifth Circuit​

Writing the February 2 opinion for the unanimous panel, Judge Cory T. Wilson rejected the government's argument that Second Amendment applies only to "law abiding, respectable citizens," citing Justice Amy Coney Barrett's dissent in Kanter v. Barr, when she served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[3][10] Justice Barrett argued, "Founding era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons," or impose any "virtue-based restrictions" on that right.[3]​

​

Judge Wilson then applied the historical tradition test articulated in Bruen in considering whether the historical analogues put forward by the Justice Department were applicable to Section 922(g)(8).[10] The Justice Department had submitted three categories of possible analogues: "(1) English and American laws...providing for the disarmament of 'dangerous' people, (2) English and American 'going armed' laws, and (3) colonial and early state surety laws".[10] The February 2 opinion stated that the historical laws disarming "dangerous" classes of people were not similar to the modern law, because "The purpose of these 'dangerousness' laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another".[12]​

​

The revised March 2 opinion included an expanded concurrence from Judge James C. Ho, arguing that "civil protective orders are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings – and issued without any actual threat of danger".[9][13] Judge Wilson went further and argued that Section 922(g)(8) could even put victims of domestic violence "in greater danger than before",[9] because they would be unable to defend themselves against their abusers with guns, if a judge had issued a "mutual" protective order.[13]​

United States v. Rahimi - Wikipedia

 

[1srelluc]

Prison can be open ended also.

Yep, just ask the J-6 folks.

 

[pknopp]

Yep, just ask the J-6 folks.

Why? It doesn't apply to any of them.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'm not sure what is inconsistent. The Constitution is clear that rights can be removed through due process.

Well we do have those "Red Flag" laws where the subject's firearms are taken away prior to any real due process taking place. And by real, I mean I don't consider actions taken in secret against the subject to be actual due process.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Its not inconsistent....you just don't like it.

There are better ways to restrict illegal gun use than by the manner currently being used....just nobody wants to do it.

Let's put it this way....a huge percentage of domestic violence is done by police themselves....usually hushed up and out of the justice system hands because it's automatic unemployment for police to have a ban on possessing firearms. (Air guns are not approved even though they are just as effective for most police situations)

But....
If there were laws concerning mental health evaluations that could limit firearm possessions to only mentally healthy people....but it's a scary slope to go on.

Especially in this current climate of a weaponized DOJ.

You don't think being incarcerated prevents a lot of the "violence" in "domestic violence" crimes?

 

[pknopp]

Well we do have those "Red Flag" laws where the subject's firearms are taken away prior to any real due process taking place.

True but not what was ruled on.

And by real, I mean I don't consider actions taken in secret against the subject to be actual due process.

Nor do I.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘The Bruen decision placed an enormously high burden on any government lawyer trying to convince a court that any gun law is constitutional. To show that a gun law is consistent with “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the government had to point to “analogous regulations” that existed when the Constitution was framed. And the government carried a particularly high burden when it hoped to enforce a law that addresses “a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century.”

Bruen, in other words, was a bold experiment in “originalism,” the idea that the only valid way to interpret the Constitution is to ask how it was understood when it was crafted.

Under an honest application of Bruen’s test, domestic abusers absolutely have a right to own a gun.
[…]
Yet, rather than admit that the Bruen framework must be fundamentally flawed if it led a federal appeals court to conclude that this uniquely dangerous criminal has a constitutional right to own a gun, Roberts instead tries to shift the blame, claiming that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases.”’ ibid
No misunderstanding, the intent of the Bruen test was to compel the lower courts to find un-Constitutional firearm regulatory measures previously held to be Constitutional, where the Court’s conservatives created a reckless, irresponsible analysis jeopardizing public safety and unintentionally exposing how flawed and untenable ‘originalist’ dogma truly is.

 

[JohnDB]

You don't think being incarcerated prevents a lot of the "violence" in "domestic violence" crimes?

No....I don't.

Domestic violence is a social problem....one of slow escalation. It doesn't happen out of the blue.
It's a slowly building thing.
One of first threats, disrespect and anger that slowly builds from small acts of physical aggression and builds to major acts of torture and murder.
(Friend was domestic violence detective with the police)

Not at any time, even after being warned by police, does a violent person think about the consequences of their actions.

No different from parent elder abuse. (Where adult children abuse their elderly parents living with them)

Because to the perpetrators, the law is only making their life more difficult and adding more frustration instead of any sort of warning that they are doing the wrong things. Add that frustration to someone with poor impulse control and it's almost guaranteed violence.

Perception is everything. And threats of incarceration mean nothing to some people.

But we can't incarcerate the whole world either.
This song is true on many levels for so many people:

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No....I don't.

Domestic violence is a social problem....one of slow escalation. It doesn't happen out of the blue.
It's a slowly building thing.

What do you mean it's a "social problem"? And how are you defining "social" so that I may attempt to put your reply into context?

I don't see what difference to the statute violation it makes, whether it happens suddenly out of the blue or if there is a buildup of being terrorized and threatened leading up the actual physical violence.

People who violate protection order REPEATEDLY should be jailed. And if they come out and do the same things and/or escalate then they really should be jailed in my opinion because it proves intent and demonstrates that our laws nor incarceration have the ability to sway them from their unlawful goal(s).

 

[frigidweirdo]

‘The Bruen decision placed an enormously high burden on any government lawyer trying to convince a court that any gun law is constitutional. To show that a gun law is consistent with “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the government had to point to “analogous regulations” that existed when the Constitution was framed. And the government carried a particularly high burden when it hoped to enforce a law that addresses “a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century.”

Bruen, in other words, was a bold experiment in “originalism,” the idea that the only valid way to interpret the Constitution is to ask how it was understood when it was crafted.

Under an honest application of Bruen’s test, domestic abusers absolutely have a right to own a gun.
[…]
Yet, rather than admit that the Bruen framework must be fundamentally flawed if it led a federal appeals court to conclude that this uniquely dangerous criminal has a constitutional right to own a gun, Roberts instead tries to shift the blame, claiming that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases.”’ ibid
No misunderstanding, the intent of the Bruen test was to compel the lower courts to find un-Constitutional firearm regulatory measures previously held to be Constitutional, where the Court’s conservatives created a reckless, irresponsible analysis jeopardizing public safety and unintentionally exposing how flawed and untenable ‘originalist’ dogma truly is.

The issue here, to me seems to be this.

The 2A is a limit on the federal govt. The right to keep arms is a limit on the federal government that stops if from preventing individuals from being able to own weapons.

This doesn't have much to do with the carrying of weapons. Obviously there's a certain amount of "you can use a gun for lawful purposes", in other words, we haven't made a law against the carry of a gun in a forest, so why wouldn't you be able to do it?

There's another part where the ability of the federal govt to make laws banning the carrying of guns in most places is also a question.

However guns have ALWAYS been taken away from people. The 2A says "shall not be infringed", but this doesn't mean that it shall never be infringed. Ironically.

In prisons, prisoners do not have guns. Of course, they've been through due process, so after due process we can take guns away from people. That's always happened in the US.

There's the temporary as well. When the police arrest someone before they've put them through the court system, they will take guns off them, because they could use those guns to escape. Etc.

This is something that has ALWAYS existed in the US. The NRA does not come out saying prisoners should have guns in prisons, doesn't say the arrested should be able to carry those guns.

 

[2aguy]

‘There is good news in Friday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi: The Court concluded that at least some people subject to domestic violence restraining orders do not have a categorical right to own a firearm, and upheld a law preventing them from doing so. While Rahimi produced a maze of concurring and dissenting opinions, eight justices ultimately agreed that a man who literally threatened to shoot the mother of his child should not be armed.

But there’s also bad news: Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent.

It does nothing to clear up the mass confusion created by the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that all gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That decision threw gun regulation throughout the United States into chaos and prompted an unusually long list of complaints from sitting judges.

In Rahimi, the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. Yet, while the Fifth Circuit has a history of taking liberties with the law to achieve conservative results, its decision in the Rahimi case was correctly decided under Bruen.

As Justice Clarence Thomas persuasively argues in dissent, Bruen compelled the Fifth Circuit to rule that domestic abusers do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. Friday’s decision in Rahimi essentially carves out an exception to Bruen that is just large enough to allow Zackey Rahimi, the cartoonishly violent individual at the center of this case, to be disarmed. But Roberts’s opinion does little else. And it provides absolutely no meaningful guidance to lower court judges who are struggling to apply the vague “historical tradition” test announced in Bruen.’

The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi

US v. Rahimi is completely incoherent, and it faults lower courts for the justices' own incompetence.

www.vox.com

The correct decision for the wrong reason, inconsistent with the test in Bruen this very Court established just two years ago, motivated by fear of a political backlash, undermining the legitimacy of ‘historical analogue’ doctrine.

Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent because ‘originalism’ is failed, wrongheaded conservative legal dogma; indeed, the conservative justices’ bizarre attempts to justify the ruling is more living Constitution than ‘originalist.’

And future Second Amendment cases will be suspect as a consequence, with more likely carveouts to come and Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly confusing and inconsistent.

You are such an idiot.......

Thomas is right, you are wrong.