Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

J_William_Ryan

(2,251 posts)

5. "...a law intended to protect victims of domestic violence."

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Oct 16, 2024, 03:39 AM

Oct 16

And the Court continues to be inconsistent with its application of the 'historical tradition' test.

If 18 to 20 year-olds weren't barred from open carry in the 18th Century, they shouldn't be so prohibited today.

This yet another example of how reckless and irresponsible the Bruen decision was, and the cowardice of the conservative majority to not consistently apply Bruen.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court tosses out decision letting 18-year-olds carry guns during emergencies in Pennsylvania [View all] BumRushDaShow Oct 15 OP

"A strong basis in history"? Walleye Oct 15 #1

The Disconnect... GB_RN Oct 15 #2

And most of their written opinions are rationalizations for decisions they wanted to make anyway Walleye Oct 15 #3

Skimpy article. Who was the plaintiff?? Grins Oct 15 #4

There was a link in AP's article to their earlier article on the appeals decision (that is now overturned) BumRushDaShow Oct 16 #6

"...a law intended to protect victims of domestic violence." J_William_Ryan Oct 16 #5

Bruen (like the nonsense that Roberts did with "broad Presidential immunity" ) BumRushDaShow Oct 16 #7