Here's a case that I laughed out loud when I heard of it. Specifically, I laughed at the judge's stupidity because I'd rather laugh at him rather than be angry at the more probable truth ... That the judge isn't stupid and his ruling is a delay tactic and expense increaser for the plaintiff. It's the most blatant twisting of the Bruen standards set down by SCOTUS that I've read.
Anyway, this is the judge and case and it was mostly concerning the New York ammunition background check and improper denials of purchase under it.
US District Judge Frank P. Geraci
NEW YORK STATE FIREARMS ASSOCIATION, et al. V. STEVEN G. JAMES, in his capacity as Superintendent of the New York State Police
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nywd.147326/gov.uscourts.nywd.147326.29.0.pdfThe decision goes through a litany of back and forth, as these things do. Some of the judge's opinion is pretty good, or at least ok, and some of it makes you shake your head. Irritating but pretty normal ...
UNTIL...
It gets to the part of conformity to the Bruen standard which requires the government to
"demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with [the] Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Does it even need to be stated that the Nation's historical tradition with respect to the law and Constitutionality thereof, begins with ratification of the Constitution in 1791; as enlightened by the Declaration and further writings of the founders ? (not to mention that State laws could be constitutional before ratification of the 14th amendment and unconstitutional immediately thereafter)
In his decision (page 13) the judge states :
The government offers several historical examples of laws that were enacted to disarm dangerous individuals, but the Court will discuss only one of the many analogues offered. In colonial Virginia, the legislature dictated that no Catholics "shall, or may have, or keep in his house or elsewhere, or in the possession of any other person to his use, or at his disposition, any arms, weapons, gunpowder or ammunition" because it was determined that "it is dangerous at this time to permit [Catholics] to be armed." VII William Waller Hennig, A Collection of all the Laws of Virginia 35 (1820), ECF No 19-17 at 4. First off, he cites only one of the examples offered by the government because the others were even more spurious or irrelevant.
The law cited was a COLONIAL law(i.e. British law) that was passed prior to the Declaration of Independence and ONLY existed prior to the writing of the Constitution and, of course, the Bill of Rights as well. I'm not sure of the exact history of the law, but I'm pretty sure it was passed in the 1750s. I?m also unsure whether it was repealed prior to 1786; when, if it were still on the books, would have been completely nullified by actions of the Virginia General Assembly.
He's essentially saying that since there were laws on the books infringing on rights before the Bill of Rights was written, he can uphold laws which infringe upon our rights. That decision alone, should cause him to be removed from the bench.
Put simply, the judge ruled that since there was a legal example of dangerous persons having their 2A rights limited in colonial times, their 2A rights can be limited today.
Of course, he clumsily tried to side-step the First amendment issues with the law by a mental editing to change "Catholic" to a more generic "dangerous persons" idea. He also mentally edited out consideration of why Catholics were considered dangerous at the time (which directly relates to the main reason for the existence of the 2A to begin with). While I think this is evidence that certain people refuse to use much of their brain to arrive at such conclusions, and it is therefore justification for calling them libtards since it's a self-induced condition, I'll set that aside for a moment for a hypothetical case.
Let's look at the colonial Virginia law as if it were a valid example of American legal tradition and ask a different question than the case brought.
Suppose a there's a different case where a law is made to "protect the public" and it infringes upon the practice of Catholicism. The feds are known to have put a couple of Catholic organizations under surveillance fairly recently, so is it as far-fetched as it sounds?
According to the judge's logic and suppositions: since there is a legal example of the practice of Catholicism considered dangerous in colonial times, the 1A rights of Catholics can be limited today.
Wanna baptize a baby? The priest better have a carry permit to take it up to the font and be certified by the State to be able to sprinkle it without dribbling any water near its nose.
Perhaps a waiting period, background check, and "proper storage requirements" are in order before purchasing a rosary since it's a choking hazard for small children?
Of course, I'm being absurd in the examples, but so was the judge(an Obama appointee, btw).
Recent Posts
