According to New York Times columnist David French, two years ago, the Supreme Court created confusion in American gun laws by stating they must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. French suggests that the Court recently made a positive decision by upholding a federal law disarming individuals under domestic violence restraining orders.
However, critics argue that the Court’s approach, as outlined in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, is impractical. The Bruen case rejected “interest-balancing” tests that judges previously used to evaluate gun laws, but critics believe it still gives judges too much discretion in determining a law’s constitutionality based on historical analogies.
In United States v. Rahimi, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the federal law disarming individuals who pose a threat to others, citing historical precedent in surety laws. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that surety laws were less burdensome than the current statute disarming individuals with restraining orders.
Despite disagreements among the justices, the Bruen test was reaffirmed, emphasizing that it does not require an exact historical match for a law to be considered constitutional. However, some lower courts are struggling to apply the Bruen standard consistently, leading to concerns about partisan bias in judicial decision-making.
Overall, while the Bruen test has been effective in challenging questionable firearm regulations, its reliance on judges’ discretion and historical interpretations remains a point of contention among Second Amendment supporters.
Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
