4 ms·
>the concept of this being an unrestricted right goes back to roughly the second half of the previous century. From a federal perspective this is laughably dis
by notch656a 4y ago
>the concept of this being an unrestricted right goes back to roughly the second half of the previous century.
From a federal perspective this is laughably disingenuous. The strongest federal gun control is the GCA and NFA. In 1920 you could mail order a machine gun.
The bill of rights weren't even fully incorporated to apply to the states until later in the republic, such as when the 14th amendment was passed. So it's disingenuous to characterize 19th century restrictions as representations of statutes in compliance the 2nd, when the 2nd didn't even necessarily apply to local/state governments at that time.
- acdha 4y agoAgain, the point is that for the first couple centuries it was not considered controversial that there could be restrictions. People might disagree on the exact details but few people thought there couldn’t be any restrictions prior to that becoming a major political rallying point in the late 1970s.
- a4a4a4a4 4y agoHave you seen the sorry excuses for “historical precedent” that NYS dug up for Antonyuk v Hochul? https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/new-york-gun-law-temporary-restraining-order/97cb10daaf586bfc/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/new-york-gun-law-temp... This was filed by the State. Search the word “negro” to find their justification for character references. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/07/preliminary-injunction-against-new-york-bans-on-licensed-carry/ https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/07/preliminary-injunction-... For a summary and explanation.