SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US government suggests that convicts are not people.
Applying that standard, Bruen held “that the Second and
Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry
a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Id. at 2122. But
the “where” question decided in Bruen is not at issue here.
Range’s appeal instead requires us to examine who is among
“the people” protected by the Second Amendment. U.S. Const.
amend. II; see Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2157 (Alito, J., concurring)
(“Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully
possess a firearm . . . .”); see also Eugene Volokh,
Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-
Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda,
56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009) (distinguishing among “who,”
“what,” “where,” “when,” and “how” restrictions). Range
claims he is one of “the people” entitled to keep and bear arms
and that our Nation has no historical tradition of disarming
people like him. The Government responds that Range has not
been one of “the people” since 1995, when he pleaded guilty
in Pennsylvania state court to making a false statement on his
food stamp application, and that his disarmament is historically
supported.
Having explained how Bruen abrogated our Second
Amendment jurisprudence, we now apply the Supreme Court’s
established method to the facts of Range’s case. Both sides
agree that we no longer conduct means-end scrutiny. And as
the panel wrote: “Bruen’s focus on history and tradition,”
means that “Binderup’s multifactored seriousness inquiry no
longer applies.” Range, 53 F.4th at 270 n.9.
After Bruen, we must first decide whether the text of the
Second Amendment applies to a person and his proposed
conduct. 142 S. Ct. at 2134–35. If it does, the government now
bears the burden of proof: it “must affirmatively prove that its
firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that
delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms"
This one is almost certainly going to the Supreme Court, and it will decide whether non-violent criminals will be treated the same as violent criminals, regarding their Second Amendment rights.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday June 07, @12:46PM
Article 1 section 2 of the constitution establishes there's different groups of people:
However, section 9 states that:
So, oddly enough, an argument could be shared between 2nd amendment advocated and immigrant rights groups: If the state wants to tax people, it should allow them to own guns and vote; and vice versa.
compiling...