Understood. But the principles under which the Constitution is adjudicated should be pretty consistent, don't you think?
My intention is not to be arguementative. It's only that the "as understood back then" filter, if universal, could be kind of important.
If I understand correctly, Bruen concludes that the 2nd Amendment must be read with it's words having the same meaning they had during the period the Amendment was passed. In the Second’s case, this was identified as being between the ratification of the 2nd (1791) and 14th (1868) Amendments...
I seem to recall something about Bruen limiting the historical dates appropriate for THT analysis to the period between the ratification of the 2nd (1791) and the 14th (1868) Amendments.
If I've got that wrong, somebody will be along shortly to issue a correction. <Smile>
Speculation on the period beginning the day after the 2022 midterms to the day before the new congress is seated. During this period the Congress seated in January, 2020 remains in place.
01: Joe Biden is removed from office and the Presidency falls upon Kamala Harris.
02: Kamala Harris...
The cost of that guarding / detecting / searching would minimize it's (national) effectiveness.
I think I'd take that trade. And afterwards press for fewer guards, not as many metal detectors, and only random purse searches.
When I think of all the school shootings that have happened on our watch, It is ludricrous to me why schools should continue to be "gun-free".
What did that fellow say? Something about "a good man with a gun?"
I believe you're correct. It would put an abrupt stop to these mischiefs. If not Constitutional Carry, the non-complying states would pass two anti-gun laws for every one the Supreme Court shoots down. SCOTUS will be reduced to playing Whac-A-Mole. I am not convinced the 6 justices see that as...