Up From Facebook

Yes, I'd be OK if 18-21 year olds were allowed to own smooth bore flintlock muskets. That was what existed at the time of the framing. '“If the Court were to exclude 18-to-21-year-olds from the Second Amendment’s protection, it would impose limitations on the Second Amendment that do not exist from other constitutional guarantees,” Payne, a George H. W. Bush-appointee, wrote. "He then turned to the second part of the Supreme Court’s test, where the high court said that a regulation could only be upheld if analogous regulations existed at the time of the framing." OTOH, if they're part of a well-regulated militia, which is what the founding fathers specifically recognized, I'd also be OK. But I'm willing to be educated, if evidence is found that AR-15s existed at the time of the framing. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/politics/federal-handgun-ban-18-20-year-olds/index.html

The right-wing 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a federal law barring people with domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms, a ruling that gun control advocates said will cost lives. A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based appellate court said in its decision that the overturned law is an unconstitutional impediment to the right to bear arms, based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. "In the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, the Supreme Court said that the government must prove that any gun regulation is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” and because the Constitution’s Framers didn’t stop domestic abusers from possessing guns, we can’t either. As Ian Millhiser points out in Vox, it was not until 1871 that a state court determined that “a husband has no right” to beat his wife." The SCOTUS is likely to rule on this case. https://angrybearblog.co...