If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms April Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***

Reply to thread

Message

Here’s a weird one - an Ohio judge addressing historical analysis as per Bruen. It seems the judge is stuck on a what-if - what if Blacks and women had the vote during the founding era and those earlier times Thomas expanded on a relevant in such analyses. But history is not what might have happened if things had been different, is it?

[URL unfurl="true"]https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/09/ohio-supreme-court-justice-expresses-doubt-about-appellate-decisions-about-history-in-second-amendment-cases/[/URL]

"Importantly, the glaring flaw in any analysis of the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation in relation to Ohio's gun laws is that no such analysis could account for what the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation would have been if women and nonwhite people had been able to vote for the representatives who determined these regulations. How would this problem be addressed in any modern analysis of historical gun regulations? It cannot simply be ignored. And even if a court tries to take the views of women and nonwhite people into account, are there sufficient materials on their views available to enable reliable conclusions to be made?"

<blockquote data-quote="MaverickNH" data-source="post: 8058813" data-attributes="member: 498">Here’s a weird one - an Ohio judge addressing historical analysis as per Bruen. It seems the judge is stuck on a what-if - what if Blacks and women had the vote during the founding era and those earlier times Thomas expanded on a relevant in such analyses. But history is not what might have happened if things had been different, is it?[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/09/ohio-supreme-court-justice-expresses-doubt-about-appellate-decisions-about-history-in-second-amendment-cases/[/URL]&quot;Importantly, the glaring flaw in any analysis of the United States&#039; historical tradition of firearm regulation in relation to Ohio&#039;s gun laws is that no such analysis could account for what the United States&#039; historical tradition of firearm regulation would have been if women and nonwhite people had been able to vote for the representatives who determined these regulations. How would this problem be addressed in any modern analysis of historical gun regulations? It cannot simply be ignored. And even if a court tries to take the views of women and nonwhite people into account, are there sufficient materials on their views available to enable reliable conclusions to be made?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MaverickNH, post: 8058813, member: 498"] Here’s a weird one - an Ohio judge addressing historical analysis as per Bruen. It seems the judge is stuck on a what-if - what if Blacks and women had the vote during the founding era and those earlier times Thomas expanded on a relevant in such analyses. But history is not what might have happened if things had been different, is it? [URL unfurl="true"]https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/09/ohio-supreme-court-justice-expresses-doubt-about-appellate-decisions-about-history-in-second-amendment-cases/[/URL] "[I]Importantly, the glaring flaw in any analysis of the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation in relation to Ohio's gun laws is that no such analysis could account for what the United States' historical tradition of firearm regulation would have been if women and nonwhite people had been able to vote for the representatives who determined these regulations. How would this problem be addressed in any modern analysis of historical gun regulations? It cannot simply be ignored. And even if a court tries to take the views of women and nonwhite people into account, are there sufficient materials on their views available to enable reliable conclusions to be made?[/I]" [/QUOTE]

Verification