Several judges have expressed concern about the effects of the Supreme Court’s [Bruen] decision. In Indiana, Judge Robert L. Miller wrote in one opinion issued in a gun case that he had “an earnest hope” that he had misunderstood the Supreme Court ruling.
“If not, most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional,” wrote Judge Miller, who was appointed in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan. He added it was an insult to the drafters of the Constitution “to assume they were so shortsighted as to forbid the people, through their elected representatives, from regulating guns in new ways.”
Any major Supreme Court ruling can cause upheaval as judges reassess what is constitutional. Justice Thomas’s opinion was unusual because he wrote that the test that lower courts had been using to assess gun laws had been misguided. He offered the new methodology based on historical comparisons and effectively removed the precedent that had helped guide judges.
“That is an extremely rare thing and obviously extremely disruptive,” said David Pucino, the deputy chief counsel of the Giffords Law Center, a gun-safety advocacy organization. Mr. Charles found that the new test had confused judges, who, he wrote, “have reached wildly inconsistent conclusions about what the test requires and how it works in practice.”
When judges are confused about constitutionality, the public doesn’t stand much of a chance. New York’s old law, which required those seeking permits to carry guns in public to show that they had a heightened need to defend themselves, stood for more than 100 years. But Justice Thomas wrote that carrying guns was a constitutional right and thus people did not need to justify it by “demonstrating to government officers some special need.”
New York’s new law, no longer able to impose that standard, aims to at least keep people from carrying guns in “sensitive locations” that include Times Square, public transit, sports venues, houses of worship and many others — the types of places Mr. Seifer said his students inadvertently carried their weapons. The law also mandated training courses and a “good moral character test” for those applying for permits to carry in public.
The first challenge came little more than a week after the law was passed, and, after some legal hiccups, led a judge to block significant parts of the law. The judge, Glenn T. Suddaby, found in October that the Supreme Court had made it impermissible for New York to bar guns at health care centers, summer camps or zoos, among other places. But the state appealed and the law was reinstated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Later that month, another judge, John L. Sinatra Jr., blocked the portion of the law that barred firearms in houses of worship because he could not find an “American tradition” that supported it. The state appealed Judge Sinatra’s ruling, too. The relevant portions of the law went back into effect.
The following month, the measure was blocked again: Challenge. Ruling. Appeal. Repeat.
— Jonah E. Bromwich in Where Can You Carry a Gun? Whiplash Court Rulings Create Confusion.
The VERY REASON the 2A exists is because THEY KNEW the Federal government would try to disarm the citizens (unorganized militia)! Read your history a$$ clown!
Another dumbazz judge blowing smoke on the behalf of Gun Control as if the Founders had penned, “Gun Control Shall Not Be Infringed.” Such sht is what happens when Gun Control is not defined by its history of rot.
Instead of defining Gun Control dumbbell Gun Owners prefer to do things like pile on POTUS DJT for throwing bump stock contraptions under the bus…a move which kept a laundry list of other much more desirable products out of the hands of what was a knee jerk worthless congress.
Had smiley face Gun Control been properly defined as a history confirmed agenda rooted in racism and genocide ignorant judges and two bit politicians would think twice before using the words, Gun Control.
A judge that doesn’t understand law or the Bill of Rights that should be removed.
Not much else to say here well done.
I’m sure they did expect it. Among other expressions of oppression. Hence the BoR.
Meanwhile “democracies” re-write books, ban images, block media access and we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.[1]
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Tench Coxe – argument in support of the 2A
Perfect, hit the nail on the head. Thanks for that resource.
ll political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party – Mao Zedong.
This is just another example of an anti-gun radical jurist who has no clue what the Constitution means.
They know…….well the ones that are not totally retarded anyway. They just don’t want there to be limits on how they can rule over us.
“Whiplash court rulings?” Not from the Supreme Court. If a dog insists on sprinting to the end of its tether, it isn’t the stake’s fault it gets snapped back.
True, the problem is states like NY and IL thumbing their noses at the ruling and immediately trying to circumvent it.
TheUnspoken, that is why someone has to go to court and hive these people (members of the State Legislatures) cited with Contempt, and fined heavily.
In my opinion (and that of others) the Founders made one error in drafting the Constitution; They neglected to incorporate the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which lays out the foundational “First Principles” of the Constitution and the Country. The Declaration is not a legal document simply because you cannot have a ‘legal’ document if you don’t have a Country, which we did not have until the Constitution was ratified. Never-the-less, the foundational “First Principles” are superior to the Constitution, and must be recognized as such if one is to understand the legal and political framework of this Country.
We could pass a constitutional amendment incorporating the Declaration of Independence by reference.
It’s an Insult to the founders that Judge Robert L. Miller would not follow the constitution but instead want to use his own interpretation.
“forbid the people, through their elected representatives, from regulating guns in new ways.”
no, ya got it wrong. what the constitution BOR forbids is codified with “shall not be infringed”, it does not say the people can regulate guns in “new ways” through their elected representatives.
From the article: “…most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional.”
That is correct, and I’m not at all sorry Judge Miller is having a sad about it. His law school failed him.
Whether the founders had foresight relative to the 2A is of no consequence.
The inalienable right the 2A protects has not changed……………..period………………
“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law (in the making of SCOTUS rulings).”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg around 2019
She should have been removed from the court for even uttering this thought. Her job, and the job of all the SCOTUS justices, is to unemotionally call the balls and strikes on challenges to law based entirely on the U.S. Constitution.
It is NOT to see what they think is proper in Europe or Canada.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Uh huh. So tell me all about the old English laws cited by the majority in Bruen and Heller…..The fact of the matter is that most of the country’s laws developed from English statutory and common law, and as such, those old laws and cases are relevant in interpreting our 200+ year old Constitution. The history and traditions test looks at all of that old law to interpret how words were used in the 1700s so as to understand their meaning and implications in the BoR.
perhaps the distinction is old english law (much of which our system is based upon) as opposed to modern rulings in soft commie weenie land like canuckistan and thems thats never had our freedoms.
Our laws are obviously based on English law but once they were enshrined in our founding documents then screw foreign law our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the only documents to refer to when deciding Constitutionally.
“Mr. Charles found that the new test had confused judges,”
These judges are confused because they refuse to accept the 2A as written.
Amazing how these learned judges are confused relative to Justice Thomas’
opinion, when a citizen without all the education understand the 2A and
the Honorable Justice Thomas.
These judges are nor confused, rather they are unwilling to accept the 2A
as written.
These judges are confused as to how they might not be bound by the high court’s ruling.
They aren’t confused, they’re liars. They want to throttle the 2A into submission, and they’ve just been told “no.” So they invent “confusion” as a tactic to try to get what they want anyway.
napresto you said exactly what I was trying to say.
Liar is the only word that truly defines them and their opinions.
Confusion is a mere excuse and truth avoidance tactic.
Many years ago, Dr. John Lott besides writing books about gun laws, also wrote a book about how judges are selected in the United States. And his research told him that, in fact, judges in the United States have very poor standards for understanding the law.
And in fact are appointed because they’re related to somebody or a friend of somebody. They’re rarely appointed because of their knowledge of the law.
“And in fact are appointed because they’re related to somebody or a friend of somebody. They’re rarely appointed because of their knowledge of the law.”
There is logic to it. In electing (a popularity contest) instead of appointing judges, that’s one of the checks on power of the government. And while it may be frustrating, I think a separation of power like that is good thing…
Whatever gun regulations the Founders might have expected or tolerated, it sure wasn’t wholesale bans and wouldn’t have included military arms; they clearly expected the militia to be as well-armed as the professional military. The gun controllers went too far too often and got slapped down with a very direct NO.
Is the mention that this judge was appointed by Reagan supposed to mean something?!? Old Ronnie pushed gun control in California & after he got shot by a 22. Blah blah blah…
yeah, it’s supposed to add a penumbra or emanation of credibility as speaking from the Right, or something to that effect. That lets the average Leftist point to it and say desiring infringement is bipartisan.
“If not, most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional,”
Finally, someone else gets it….
Wow, this guy is a moron. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The founders gave us two ways to amend the Constitution. What this idiot doesn’t get is that Congress does not have the power to violate the Constitution. It has the power to amend it. But good luck with that…
Well, at least the Chicongo voters have realized their past poor decisions and have ridded themselves of Groot. Let’s hope that Vallas can win the runoffs there and reverse the insane decisions made in the past.
Vallas ran ads supporting the so-called “assault weapon” ban. And baby murder. And happy marriage. And his record as school head is pathetic. He led because he’s white. #2 Let’s go Brandon is the worst…
I think it’s a “plug your nose and pull the lever” situation where the least worst is the best choice. And I really don’t think that in Chitown that being White would offer any advantage.
He led because he’s white.
You ARE joking….. Right? Anyway, if this guy wins AND he runs the city like he ran the schools they are “fucked” even more they have been.. Half the schools in the Chiraq school system students cannot read or do math at grade level, how the hell are they going to run their drug business if they can’t keep track of income vs expenses…
Half the schools in the entire COUNTRY don’t test at grade level, but lower the standards, throw a couple hundred billion at them, and pass the fucking Einstiens…. a majority of them will end up on welfare anyway.
“Half the schools in the Chiraq school system students cannot read or do math at grade level, how the hell are they going to run their drug business if they can’t keep track of income vs expenses…”
Uh, buy at $100, and sell at $500 is pretty much all they need to ‘Kickstarter’ a drug empire…
@unicorn
It just means they found someone worse to replace her.
Judge Miller needs to retire, since he can no longer read and apply the Constitution, as written, properly. Moreover, the Giffords people are nothing but lying weasels.
Of course the founders expected there would be attempts at gun control, that is why the language of the Second Amendment is so explicit. Press, religion, and speech all got jammed into the First, but the Second stands alone. One of the major things that finally sparked off the Revolution was the attempts by the government to sieze guns and ammunition.
Hard to believe a judge appointed by a Republican could be so ignorant of the founding of this country. Democrats worship at the alter of big government and will even dispute the meaning of is, all in order to achieve their political goals.
‘…most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional…’
Uh huh.
BTW, which laws were developed to ‘protect… the right to bear arms’?
Come and take it. Come and get it, I’ll even try to make sure you get the ammunition too!
try to make sure you get the ammunition too!
Only way to be absolutely certain is to give them the ammo FIRST…
With free delivery… 🙂
Uh, yeah. The Founders did expect future that politicians would try to consolidate all power to themselves. That’s why the original amendments in the Bill of Rights established limits on how far the government could regulate citizen’s or State’s rights.
The Bill of Rights isn’t a list of rights conferred by the government on citizens to be revoked at its pleasure.
No matter how much Statists like Judge Miller dislike it, the 2nd Amendment does include that pesky phrase “…shall not be infringed.”
And dittos to Gov. William J Le Petomane:
“… most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional…” and “BTW, which laws were developed to protect…the right to bear arms?”
Actually the Founders were foresighted enough to realize that one day the political class would try to disarm the citizens. so to better control them,
Founders were foresighted enough to realize that one day the political class would try to disarm the citizens.
Actually, they based it on their PAST experiences of a greedy “controlling” despot when George sought to disarm colonists so as to make it easier to coerce them into paying MORE taxes…
Lets try a little thought experiment, shall we?
“If not, most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both slavery and the right to buy and sell slaves might well be unconstitutional,” wrote Judge Miller, who was appointed in 1855 by anti-abolitionist Democrat President Franklin Pierce.
There, does that give Hizzonner Judge Miller a bit of perspective on his statement?
Preach
Oh, they absolutely did expect it. Thats exactly why they passed the 2nd amendment. To stop it if possible
I suspect that the ban on church carry will not survive appellate review. As it is, the trial court ruled the ban unconstitutional, and issued a preliminary injunction. The defendants (now respondents) are two county DAs and the Superintendent of the NY State Police Negrelli (formerly Bruen)–but only the Superintendent appealed. In fact, both DAs AGREE that the ban is unconstitutional and have filed respondents’ briefs so stating.
19 days till the next courtroom drama.
The American Revolution was started because the Brits desired to implement gun control in the US. This judge has clearly lost sight of that.
The founders prohibited their new government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. They knew what they meant when they wrote those words.
They also built in a way to change anything in the constitution via the amendment process.
The ONLY way to change the second amendment is via the amendment process.
Schumer, Jeffries Issue ‘Demand’ for What Fox News Should Do to Its Hosts: If this is NOT a violation of the 1st amendment then nothing is…
https://ijr.com/schumer-jeffries-issue-demand-for-what-fox-news-should-do-to-its-hosts/?utm_source=Email&utm_m
Considering that Thomas Jefferson had two foreign made air rifles that were supposed to be repeaters and accurate out over 100 yards; and that two sere sent along with Lewis and Clark expedition, it is hard to imagine all the founders meant to protect was muzzle Loaders.
Because the other amendments in the Bill of Rights spoke of an individual’s right, it is hard to imagine that the Second Amendment was written to be a right not of an individual. ‘The People’, is not describing a semi-military group but of individual patriots.
So people that vote and people eligible for jury duty cannot be trusted to own and carry a gun until they prove to the government they can be trusted? Meanwhile criminals have all the guns they need, this does not seem to bother many in the court system. Here in Illinois, criminals have more rights than we do.
l am all for universal background checks, psych evals and special training – FOR REGISTERING VOTERS.
Once registered to vote, firearm ownership should be something closer to a civic obligation than a “privilege”.
“If not, most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional,” wrote Judge Miller
Ahh so they meant ‘be infringed as so determined by legislators and courts in the future’. They just weren’t motivated enough to write all those words.
any way to manipulate words and their meaning to get what you want.
The founding fathers new that sometime in the future some politician or judge would try to limit or remove our right to bear arms thus the inclusion of three words in the second amendment “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” those words need no debate over they mean what they say!
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
It’s an insult to me he is a judge !!!!!
It’s an insult to me this man is a judge!!!!!!!!!!!
it’s an insult to the founders that robert l. miller is a judge.
Comments are closed.