Haven't read the whole thing but someone sent me this and suggested I at least read the last 7 pages. He doesn't hold back, and I thought some would find it interesting, particularly the section of the Conclusion titled Revisiting Originalism. Twitter thread: PDF: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863670/reeves-order.pdf We have one Constitution. All of it is law. It has been enforced today as best as this Judge can discern the Bruen Court’s holding and reasoning. And, one hopes, a future Supreme Court will not rest until it honors the rest of the Constitution as zealously as it now interprets the Second Amendment. **** For one, the originalist case for originalism is lacking. This Court has yet to see evidence proving “that the original meaning of Article III of the Constitution included the understanding that courts should interpret the Constitution based on its original meanings.” Erwin Chemerinsky, Worse than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism 82 (2022) [herein‐after Worse than Nothing]. In other words, it is not clear that founding‐era Americans collectively agreed that for time immemorial, their descendants would be bound by the founding generation’s views on how the Constitution should be read. **** Many of our Nation’s finest moments came when we rejected the original public meaning of a Constitutional provision. Brown v. Board of Education rejected the original interpretation of “equal protection,” which had led to “separate but equal” schools. Worse than Nothing at 68‐69. The original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment limited women “to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.” Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130, 141 (1872) (Bradley, J., concurring). It had to go. Earlier Americans might not have understood the notion of “due process” to include marriage equality. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). But future generations did. “We changed.” Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, 64 F. Supp. 3d 906, 922 (S.D. Miss. 2014). **** Let’s be clear about what this means for originalism. The next generation will have its own conceptions of liberty. It will interpret the principles of the Constitution, enduring as they are, differently than this generation has interpreted them. Change is unstoppable. And to the extent Bruen and decisions like it try to stop that change, they will not last long. The only question is how long the People will let them remain.
Great opinion. As subsequent events have shown, Heller has proven to be one of the worst decisions ever handed down by SCOTUS, and the NRA and gun manufacturers the worst advocacy groups.
“Originalism” is a fabricated nonsense. It is a buzzword to change every last meaning of “liberty.” To go straight to the heart of the matter, if you think a single FF baked in a way to be ousted by force, you are living a delightful nightmare.
I wonder how long people should lose most of their Constitutional Rights for... 20 years... 30 years... 40 years. That's quite a sentence for some American citizens.
What I like about the decision is the emphasis he puts on making clear how impossible the idiotic Bruen decision is for lower courts to implement in any sort of consistent manner. That was a point many of us made at the time the decision came down. It has been a total disaster, and now, Republican SCOTUS basically has to take up another gun case to try and put some guardrails on the disaster that is the Bruen decision.
I think lower courts are interpreting "tradition" incorrectly. 100 years is a long tradition in a place like NY. I am a strong advocate for the 2nd Amendment. I am also a strong advocate for if you want to carry, move to a carry friendly state - otherwise the issue just isn't that important to you. I much prefer the states to have discretion than a court make a national rule. It is the same reason I opposed Roe vs Wade. But I won't open that can of worms.
