this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
37 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10174 readers
139 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 11 months ago

๐Ÿค– I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summarySince then, Second Amendment advocates have brought all manner of challenges to state and federal gun laws across the country, plunging the lower courts into conflicting conclusions about how precise the analog has to be.

Former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, who was in charge of the Justice Department's criminal appeals docket for 24 years, says there is a good reason there is no precise analog from the 1700s.

"I think there's a certain whistling past the judicial graveyard, if you will," says Jerry Beard, a former assistant federal defender in Texas, who served in the office that is representing Rahimi.

Dreeben sees the dangers as far more imminent if the court strikes down the law banning guns for those covered by domestic violence protective orders.

More generally, Dreeben says, a decision against the federal law could cast doubt on an a network of prohibitions enacted by state and local governments that have been shown to be even more effective because of their greater breadth.

In 2019, Barrett dissented when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law banning convicted felons from possessing guns.


Saved 86% of original text.