An article at slate.com yesterday details the efforts of a brace of red-shirted Moms Demand Action members who are “scouring archives across the United States for historical firearm regulations.” What they’re actually doing, author Mark Joseph Stern says, is trying to dig up proof that Justice Clarence Thomas was wrong in his Bruen opinion when he wrote that prior to 1900, carry restrictions weren’t part of America’s history and tradition.
In Bruen, the Supreme Court demanded proof that a firearm regulation is rooted in “longstanding” tradition in the form of “historical analogues”—old gun laws that show how Americans “understood” the Second Amendment in the past. The historical record of firearm regulations, however, is far from complete. So motivated volunteers like [Moms Demand Action member Jennifer] Birch, a product designer by trade, are stepping in to fill the gaps. What they’ve found directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s conclusions.
This is actually an article about how an organization funded by a billionaire is encouraging people to work for free for no reason. And when there’s a misleading article about the Second Amendment that confidently asserts nonsense, Mark Joseph Stern’s name is often on the byline.
Birch was surprised by what she found: Santa Ana prohibited the concealed carry of weapons, including guns, in 1892, while neighboring Anaheim followed suit in 1893. Orange County itself, in which both cities are located, had also prohibited concealed carry for well more than a century.
Yes, lots of places did that. Concealed carry was often banned, but open carry was allowed. If California wanted to ban concealed carry today but allow open carry, there is a historical tradition to support that. But because they’ve banned open carry, concealed carry is all that’s left.
It’s weird Stern and the volunteer moms are acting like what they’ve found is somehow shocking. Many states have presented such concealed carry restriction laws in a variety of cases.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, found that before that date, concealed carry bans were not part of America’s history and traditions, and they were thus unconstitutional.
That’s not, in fact, what Thomas wrote. Again, open carry was generally allowed.
The disparity in these cases between well-funded gun rights advocates and government attorneys—with little expertise and relatively low access to expert historians—means a court may strike down a gun law not because it’s unsupported by the record, but because government lawyers lacked the time, knowledge, and resources to dig up analogous laws from the past.
This of course, is a lie. State defendants in lawsuits challenging gun control laws are typically using more historical “experts” than gun rights litigants are. This applies in every case I am involved in, for example. We do what we can on limited budgets, whereas they have both effectively unlimited taxpayer dollars, and also Bloomberg-backed gun control orgs funding them.
California cities also required gun owners to store gunpowder safely, and restricted the amount of it that a person could store at one time. These laws are analogous to modern-day regulations of ammunition, like requirements for safe storage and bans on high-capacity magazines—regulations that are under attack in the courts right now.
Again, it’s hilarious that they think they’ve found something groundbreaking here. California first cited many such laws almost a year ago in their first post-Bruen briefs. Also, restrictions on gunpowder storage mainly applied to black powder and vanished later. They are not in any way analogous to magazine capacity restrictions. Rather, they were about fire prevention because of how inherently flammable black powder is.
Everytown is compiling a list of their discoveries; the organization shared a draft with Slate and allowed us to share individual findings, but asked us not to publish the entire list—currently at 159 laws—because it remains incomplete.
Heh. California cited more than that in their Duncan/Miller/Rhode charts a while back. Also, there’s a clerk in our office who will definitely get a kick out of them bragging about gathering up 159 laws.
For example, in the 1800s, many Western territories implemented stringent restrictions on firearms; some, like Idaho and Wyoming, prohibited the public carry of any firearm in all municipalities. Yet Thomas dismissed the importance of these laws, reasoning that they were “transitional” measures that did not reflect the national “consensus” or “tradition.”
These restrictions were, by definition, transitional. Those laws didn’t remain in place for long, and were contradicted by what actual states were doing at the time.
Future generations, and future Supreme Courts, may see this historical evidence as a justification to roll back or overturn decisions like Heller and Bruen that hinge on bogus history.
Oh really? Is that why even the Biden Department of Justice is citing 19th century sources that confirm that the fundamental holdings of Heller and Bruen are correct?
It’s adorable that Stern thinks a klatch of red-shirted wine moms leafing through the stacks will be the secret weapon that will take down the hated Bruen decision and preserve America’s unconstitutional gun control laws.
Konstadinos Moros is an Associate Attorney with Michel & Associates, a law firm in Long Beach that regularly represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in its litigation efforts to restore the Second Amendment in California. You can find him on his Twitter handle @MorosKostas. To donate to CRPA or become a member, visit https://crpa.org/.
Photo demonstrates well the theory that prog broads are far more “homely” than conservative ladies/women.
As a city mayor – the “transitional” (or permanent) ordinances of cities don’t mean squat. NOT “laws” and do not trump the Constitution.
> Photo demonstrates well the theory that prog broads are far more “homely” than conservative ladies/women.
God damn, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Overreact much? There’s a well-known trope that the low info antigun Moms Demand Action gals are usually well into middle age with dumpy backsides, bad color jobs on their hair, and are more at home harassing the waitstaff at the local Olive Garden than speaking on Constitutional issues that affect all of us.
With that said, calling them homely doesn’t help the cause. Get away from the ad hominems and focus on the fact that the Constitution is set up specifically to counter these intrusions on our rights.
The current scathing description of these low budget creeps is the name”Karen”.
A group of fascist harridans are actively attempting to suppress human and civil rights and you get upset because we insult them, jsled?
I noticed you didn’t say he was wrong.
The most miserable little man in the world.
Gotta be a caricature.
Moms Demand Action sounds a lot like a seriously deficient love life at home.
jsled, you dunce of a Leftist/fascist/Commie moron, it’s actually quite simple; Leftist women are often, perhaps VERY often, physically unattractive. The few who might be, on the surface, somewhat physically attractive, are so twisted by hate, faux-‘feminism’, and Leftist dogma that they end up being unattractive (per my dear Daddy’s old saying, “Beauty is only skin-deep; ugly goes clear to the bone!”.
NOW do you understand, you pimple on the body politic????
The one on the left looks like a plain (and I do mean plain) old dyke.
You spelled whine wrong (you left out the ‘h’ ) 😉
“It’s adorable that Stern thinks a klatch of red-shirted wine moms leafing through the stacks will be the secret weapon that will take down the hated Bruen decision and preserve America’s unconstitutional gun control laws.”
It appears someone forgot to inform the red shirt/coat busy body drama queens someone else has already plowed the concealed carry field and just like their beloved Gun Control…Concealed Carry denial and permits are Rooted In Racism as noted in the following…
But they’re just trying to protect us all from those evil black things! It’s not like they’re trying to disarm us…..really!!
Colin Woodard takes a fascinating look at how the settling of the U.S. by different ethnic groups with different cultures influence even today how much gun violence is found in various areas of the U.S. In a separate study he also did a study on how cultural differences influence life expectancy.
Gun deaths far less common in NYC area than U.S. overall
In reality, the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence, while the regions Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher than New York’s. On a regional basis it’s the southern swath of the country — in cities and rural areas alike — where the rate of deadly gun violence is most acute, regions where Republicans have dominated state governments for decades.
Gun violence——-https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/23/surprising-geography-of-gun-violence-00092413
Life expectancy——-https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/southerners-die-younger-than-other-americans-it-s-not-why-you-think/ar-AA1g52oR?ocid=U143DHP&pc=U143&cvid=f57aea9f54f64841a9f12170eb40289a&ei=30
…so, did we ever reach a consensus on what to call a group of Karens? Last I heard the preferred term was ‘a complaint’.
School board?
The View
A privilege of Karens.
“A Karen is a woman, usually white, who uses her privilege to get what she wants no matter the cost to others.”
Karens: Who They Are, How To Spot One, And How They Came To Be — https://studybreaks.com/thoughts/how-to-spot-karens/
I withdraw my previous suggestion this blows it out of the water.
Mane..
Like a ‘Murder’ of crows? /s
But crows don’t murder anyone.
Karens, however, do privilege.
I’m still bummed out the moniker of a scruffy young Clint Eastwood ‘High Plains Drifter’ is now Mr. Clean. 🙁
On the upside, with all the money he’s saving on expensive hair care products, he can now afford more range time… 🙂
So I gotta use my brain to improve my aim and Minoxidil for my mane?
Herd
Or, an ‘entitlement’ of Karens…
BINGO!! WINNER WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!!
a twat of karens?
DP
Hmmm..
An Unkindness of Ravens
How about a Kotex of Karens?
“An Unkindness of Ravens”
A Koffee Klatch of Karing Karens?
Sam one k too many for the functional equivalent.
…a bitch of Karens? But I think I like “privilege” a bit better, since I would be more likely to use it.
Yeah, straw man arguments are easy to “win.” That’s why they are so popular among the intellectually dishonest!
The Left assured me stare decisis was sacrosanct – that no ruling could ever be changed or reversed. What happened?
Evidence doesn’t matter. If the libs get 5 on SCOTUS, the 2A is gone. They don’t care about evidence. They don’t care about arguments, or reason, or facts. They only care about power, and the instant they get it, they’ll use it.
“If the libs get 5 on SCOTUS, the 2A is gone.”
Yep, the first that goes is ‘Heller’…
The busy body batches are welcomed to try to paint a smiley face on Gun Control…Good luck with that.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=neLdsW7XZSM&feature=shared
The only reason Moms Looking For Action are doing this is so they can get together to drink more wine.
Seriously though…I’ve talked to these types and personally encountered Moms Demand Action idiots… every one of them is pure emotion confirmation bias and no genuine common sense at all. Its just all “do what we want and forget the constitution, we will decide because we say we can because we granted ourselves the power to do that so do what we want!”
They are just a bunch of Nasis brown shirts with less fashion sense (I know spelling, to get pass “moderation”)
“Everytown is compiling a list of their discoveries; the organization shared a draft with Slate and allowed us to share individual findings, but asked us not to publish the entire list…”
Ooooo how “cloak and dagger” of them!
Nothing more than propaganda to entice the gullible gun-haters to fork over more of their “wine money!”
And telling that a billionaire like Bloomberg needs “volunteer” labor.
Is that his future business model?
For the rest of us it won’t be voluntary.
Dollars to donuts says few if any of these “discoveries” predated the 14th Amendment, and none predated the adoption of the 2d. Ergo, irrelevant to the originalist Bruen test adopted by the Court.
And, I strongly suspect, none of these haven’t already been found and listed by scholars like Dave Koppel.
> wine moms
What is the justification for this libel?
I mean, we can be opposed to their cause without such childish nonsense; it just diminishes your argument.
shame and exile are how civilization was formed.
If the shoe fits it seems to give you fits.
Just using some Alinski tactics on the opposition…
What’s good for the goose, ya know…
“What is the justification for this libel?”
Not finding any historical evidence of overall victory for people who thought war could be polite.
Yeah, but they get to hold their heads high while having nothing to show for it. Like Pence and Kasic. Better to be a perennial loser nobody likes than get a little dirt on your shirt fighting for something of value.
“Yeah, but they get to hold their heads high while having nothing to show for it.”
There’s that.
“Like Pence and Kasic.” Pence tried to make all of the other candidates say out loud that Pence did the right thing leading up to January 6th. That was so juvenile. If I hadn’t already decided against him for not promising to pardon Donald Trump if the latter is convicted and then try to justify abiding by this sham of a prosecution, I would have decided against him TWICE in the debate.
And then there’s Ford, Dole, Romney, McCain, Jeb!, HW Bush in his lame attempt at a second term, half of the republicans currently in the Senate, and a bunch currently in the House. I also put McCarthy, McConnell, Hastert, and Gingrich in that bunch. And then there’s Roberts on SCOTUS. What an awful choice for a Chief Justice.
All of these milquetoasts and more go around “holding their heads high” without having done a damned thing to justify it.
“…such childish nonsense; it just diminishes your argument.”
Like this childish nonsense diminishes yours?
“God damn, what the fuck is wrong with you?”
Ignore that dude. He’s just a hothead, and he has been for years. He probably scowls just like his cartoon avatar.
jsled,
Just as your total stick-up-your-@$$ attitude, and complete lack of a sense of humor, diminishes yours . . . not that you had one, in the first place. You continue to be the reliable Leftist/fascist drive-by idiot, and we’ll continue to laugh at you. Works for us, and it’s all you are capable of. Isn’t that fortuitous???
TL, DR.
Hey at least Shannon Watts has left the proverbial ‘building’, no longer part of that organization.
Her cash cow must have been gored. Or at least made into burgers and chops.
“Moms Demand Action”
Well, they’d have to be a lot better looking than those skanks in the picture before they got any action from me!
Right Delayed = A Right Denied = LAWSUIT
Only five or six months? I have heard that in LA it is more than a year! Otherwise the story is exactly the same. NJ is no different either; the licensing officers ignore the statutory time limit. I suspect all of these deniers have intentionally understaffed their offices to avoid issuing permits.
All it takes is one judge proclaiming if they can’t meet the deadline, then the right to carry is granted without a permit.
That’s how to deal with crap like that…
In OH, it’s 45 days. Our local sheriff isn’t a much of a supporter of concealed carry, so his office usually sits on them until day 42 or 43.
Chris Christie did that and Carole Brown died because of his and his administration’s inaction on her CC permit approval. Killed by her own ex in her own driveway. Stabbed to death mere steps from a firearm in her house. Friends of 2A don’t let loved ones vote for Chris Christie.
Those red shirted hens don’t understand text, history and tradition. They are clucking about Bruen when everything important is in Heller. Bruen affirmed Heller. In Bruen: “In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
It’s inconsequential red hens dig up obscure laws OUTSIDE our founding years beginning in 1776 and ending in 1836. Red Hens stupidity is astounding.
Repeal the 19th.
Once worked in an office where we had a flaming leftist, who, though generally quiet, would sometimes hold forth on the fact that rich people wouldn’t give up the majority of their wealth “for the common good”. This woman made over $80,000, in 1995. The lady had two daughters enrolled in high school, on a track to gain scholarships to ivy league schools. Both were A students.
So…
I asked her one day if she thought it unseemly that her daughters made all A’s, while others in the classes were C-level at best. And shouldn’t she be agitating the school board to grade every one at B-level so those unable to otherwise make A’s wouldn’t suffer, and be locked into low-income blue collar jobs?
The Lefty was outraged that I would even suggest that: “My girls work really hard for their grades; why should they be punished?”
Cops Mad They’re Included in Gun Free Zone Policy. (and military members are excluded from the business too just cause they are military members)
Useful idiot women. Nothing more to be said.
Wasn’t the entire Bruen ruling based on whether laws existed in 1790? That makes this 19th century stuff irrelevent.
1790 was during the founding years. The founding years were between 1776 to 1836 when the last of our founding fathers passed. So anything after 1836 and idiotic laws from way before our founding are inconsequential. They are clinging to a sinking ship. It’s like clinging to the side of the Titanic on its way to the bottom in hopes it stops and floats back to the surface.
While some courts are still getting it wrong by using “interest balancing” the tide is clearly turning and we are seeing more courts recognizing what Bruen said, which essentially spelled it out if plain language for inferior courts because they still were still ruling incorrectly post Heller holding.
“While some courts are still getting it wrong by using “interest balancing”…”
Using the above as a springboard, governments are created to secure (protect, sustain, prosper) the rights of the people, not preserve the “interests” of government. Thus, government can only have “powers” delegated by the people, not alongside, equal, superior to the people. Indeed, the people can remove “powers”, and government, acting as some sort of agent independent of the people, has no inherent authority to oppose the people.
“Interest balancing” implies government is equal to the people, not dependent on the people.
I would love to have the time to protest, but hey, I have a job and responsibilities. Why aren’t these women home taking care of their snot-gobblers, cooking, cleaning and doing the dishes. (You know their feet are smaller, easier for them to get closer to the stove and wash basin). Yes, I am being sarcastic.
A sexist would say!
XZX wuz banned on Slate – after, iirc, 3 posts that in way violated the rules of civil discourse.
Prog dewd: Because 2+3=6, we must all self-immolate!
XZX: 2+3=5.
Slate: You’re BANNED!
Then they eliminated comments entirely. Good times…
Good
Where about 70% of the worlds population lives in a 3rd world condition with diminished freedom and rights, we in the 1st world are complaining we have too much freedom and rights.
Those who are uncomfortable with having too much freedom are free to go where the would me more comfortable.
be.
I doubt these ladies could begin to comprehend the ins and outs of written laws and they’re glad to give away our rights, sometimes people need to be smacked back into reality, if you put two and two together the grabbers are always working multiple angles to take away our rights and they continue to attack, these ladies trying to find a loophole and the dems in congress are trying to find a way to get rid of judge Clarence Thomas so they can install a gun grabber Supreme Court Justice.
“I doubt these ladies could begin to comprehend the ins and outs …”
Which is why they demand action — they ain’t gettin’ any.
Not unless it runs on batteries, but I think their personal pleasure device either has at least 3-phase mains or was originally intended for industrial use.
SC
And the corner on the perpetually out of balance washing machine is unusually, well, ‘polished…’
“Moms Demand Action” still sounds like a PornHub category its always disappointing to find out that they are just anti-American civil liberties hating organization that exists solely to infringe on American’s absolute rights with arms ownership.
“Useful Idiots” being uselessly used.
Oh, wow. This article simply made my night, no, my weekend, NO!, MY ENTIRE WEEK!!!! Just so incredibly well done. This masterpiece is a textbook example of a massive ass whooping’ via words. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. Thank you so very much for this awesomeness.
Oh, man, my wife keeps asking me why I’m giggling like a school girl….look what you’ve done now!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
(5 outta 5 tennis balls for you, sir. )
Looking at the picture, these wine moms demanding action women would have a difficult time getting action on death row with a handful of pardons. Yeah, I know that’s mean, etc.
Seriously, the whole Bloomberg sponsored anti gun program has not been a waste of effort and money. If the progressives get control of the SCOTUS we can kiss our rights of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement and the RTKBA goodbye. Look at what happened during the 2020 election cycle on speech. Look at what happened with the COVID crap. Look at the political persecution of Trump. Even my Dem. sister sees it for what it is. Oh, yes, she supports the cause etc. but at least admits what it is. And, yes, I’m the bad guy for having firearms and living out in such a remote area. Especially down in the oh so racist South etc. Of course she has never lived outside of the MSP area since moving there when she was 19. She’s 79 now. Her only complaint is her property values have dropped like a rock since the Floyd riots.
Anyways, try to support the Republicans at both state and federal levels in the coming elections. If you value not just your gun rights, but the majority of your civil liberties and rights as well.
Bloomie is trying to buy his way into heaven as atonement for his life so far.
Southern,
I always automatically distrust any man whose ego size FAR exceeds his body size . . . and Mini-Mike would be a textbook example. That he is also a demonstrated heinous, obnoxious, self-important clown just adds the cherry to the top of the sundae.
you will find Bloomberg listed under the category: Malignant Dwarf–never could Hook up unless it was for money. He is an absolute charm desert,and short in all departments ,or so rumor has it. Tiny Tools,–Tiny Mind.
I noted this: “For example, in the 1800s, many Western territories implemented stringent restrictions on firearms;”
FWIW, a territory is, by definition, not a state. I know that none of the states were states prior to the 1770s, and that our existing legal structure descends from colonial/territorial law. Still, when states become states, they are required to conform to federal law. There were no federal laws mandating the things that gun control advocates are pushing. No federal law deprived any individual of his rights, just because exercising such rights made someone uncomfortable.
Well – there was prohibition, and the war on drugs, but those won’t even fit the historical context called for here.
Perhaps the one with two chins is on her phone telling Biden to overrule the ruling.
TERRIBLE IDEA: GUN CONTROL-SUPPORTING “VOLUNTEERS” ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T EXIST..
Volunteers from Moms Demand Action are looking for Founding Era gun control laws but that is likely a fool’s errand. Mark Smith breaks down the story appearing in the online magazine, Slate.
Yup. It’s not like scholars haven’t been pouring over historical archives for decades looking for this kind of stuff.
To the extent they claim to “find” anything remotely reasonable, it will need to be fact checked. Recall Michael A. Bellesiles (Emory University professor) issued a book a few years ago that purported to prove that firearm ownership at the time of the founding was actually uncommon, and the left showered him with all sorts of awards and acclaim. But then Dave Koppel and others scholars started checking into his claims, and lo and behold in turns out Bellesiles made it all up. It got him fired from Emory and utterly discredited as an academic . . . but I’ve seen courts continue to cite him as if what he claims to have found is actually true.
IOW, these folks are not beyond fabricating stuff in the interest of getting around Bruen. Always demand proof and then independently verify it.
I stumbled across a paper written several years ago that was a very comprehensive discussion of the historical record of firearms law. I have since lost the link. I may have seen it mentioned in one of your posts? Do you recall anything like that?
This one by Kopel [I keep misspelling his name!] and Greenlee (The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, Journal of Legislation, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2024) is the gold standard:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4393197
“IOW, these folks are not beyond fabricating stuff in the interest of getting around Bruen.”
I’m looking at it this way –
It’s busy work. They are devoting hours and hours to a fruitless quest, while they might be doing something actually damaging.
As Darius Rucker once sang (and what a *serious* set of pipes he has!), let her cry…
@SAFEupstateFML
“Sam one k too many for the functional equivalent.”
A Klatch of Karing Karens?
Perfect and already three sheets to the wind.
“Perfect and already three sheets to the wind.”
Putting corn, wheat, rye, barley, and cereal and yeast into bottles as liquids was genius of someone.
The “history and tradition” logic felt like a half measure here.
The second amendment is clear. It protects the right of the people to form militias and it protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms – unconditionally.
History and tradition, reasonable restrictions, unusual weapons…..all are imagined constructs not present in the text of the second amendment.
SCOTUS needs to find its backbone and get rid of all the imagined 2A carveouts that courts have fabricated out of thin air.
so the unpaid Bloomberg flunkies think that because a few towns or cities had a few restrictions everyone should just bend over and give up our rights ??
typical liberal democrat stupidity
“a brace of red-shirted Moms Demand Action members”
I prefer “Demanding Mommies”. 1/4th of the syllables. Better comprehension.
Or as the Miller (not Bud) Light advertising said, “Great taste, less filling.”
Slate Cheers 20 WHINE Moms…” there fixed it for ya’.
Comments are closed.