Would the Rahimi decision not benefit the state here? It seems to me that the founding-era law cited as a historical analogue in that case was, to put it lightly, a bit of a reach, and anti-gun AGs and judges will not hesitate to use Rahimi to claim more leeway to claim that founding-era laws that are tangentially related at best are sufficiently analogous to justify any and all of their bans and restrictions.
Also, is it significant that these anti-gun judges are contradicting each other in their arguments to support magazine bans i.e. some are arguing that magazines are “arms” that simply fail their bad-faith “in common use for self defense” test whereas others are declaring that magazines are not “arms” at all? Is this not a question that SCOTUS needs to resolve?
Very well crafted! If a judge had any “common sense” they would see this as well and the logic is there. The illogical ideals that “Lcms” are dangerous is completely absurd and lack evidence in any reasonable way to have a compelling argument. At the end of the day it should’ve been open and shut.
Would the Rahimi decision not benefit the state here? It seems to me that the founding-era law cited as a historical analogue in that case was, to put it lightly, a bit of a reach, and anti-gun AGs and judges will not hesitate to use Rahimi to claim more leeway to claim that founding-era laws that are tangentially related at best are sufficiently analogous to justify any and all of their bans and restrictions.
Also, is it significant that these anti-gun judges are contradicting each other in their arguments to support magazine bans i.e. some are arguing that magazines are “arms” that simply fail their bad-faith “in common use for self defense” test whereas others are declaring that magazines are not “arms” at all? Is this not a question that SCOTUS needs to resolve?
Very well crafted! If a judge had any “common sense” they would see this as well and the logic is there. The illogical ideals that “Lcms” are dangerous is completely absurd and lack evidence in any reasonable way to have a compelling argument. At the end of the day it should’ve been open and shut.