{"id":91550,"date":"2023-04-04T11:10:00","date_gmt":"2023-04-04T16:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91550"},"modified":"2023-04-04T11:10:00","modified_gmt":"2023-04-04T16:10:00","slug":"91550","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91550","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

The Footnote to End All Gun Control<\/a><\/p>\n

The United States of America is founded on the presumption of innocence. After the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark\u00a0New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen<\/em>\u00a0Supreme Court decision, there is now a presumption that gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can prove there was a similar law at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

According to the\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0decision, the interest balancing test does not apply to Second Amendment cases. The courts can only rely on the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This decision put most anti-gun politicians and advocates in a precarious position. Almost no gun control existed at the time of the Second Amendment\u2019s ratification.\u00a0 With the combination of little to no supporting historical evidence and without leniency from the previous interest balancing test, gun control advocates will have a much harder time of successfully passing legislation that will defeat SCOTUS\u2019s new test.\u00a0The anti-gun side had to find something in history that would save gun control laws.<\/p>\n

Anti-gun state and gun control advocates usually point to the Sir John Knight\u2019s Case<\/em>\u00a0that challenged the Statute of Northampton. According to the anti-gun side, the law forbids carrying a firearm in public. Still, most legal scholars agree that it banned the carrying of a gun in public only if the intent is to terrify the people. Without many other examples of gun control laws, the anti-gun side must base their arguments on this case.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for the gun control side, the Supreme Court addressed the\u00a0Sir John Knight\u2019s Case<\/em>\u00a0and others like it.<\/p>\n

According to Footnote 11 of the\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0decision, whenever multiple interpretations can be taken from a case, the Supreme Court will favor the interpretation that favors the Second Amendment. This demand puts the burden on the state to prove their analog is consistent with the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

Footnote 11 reads:
\n\u201cThe dissent discounts Sir John Knight\u2019s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, because it only \u201carguably\u201d supports the view that an evil-intent requirement attached to the Statute of Northampton by the late 1600s and early 1700s. See post, at 37. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

But again, because the Second Amendment\u2019s bare text covers petitioners\u2019 public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York\u2019s proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment\u2019s text and historical scope. See supra, at 15. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

To the extent there are multiple plausible interpretations of Sir John Knight\u2019s Case, we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment\u2019s command.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Because SCOTUS referenced the case in a footnote doesn\u2019t mean the state will not try to use\u00a0Sir John Knight\u2019s Case<\/em>. We have seen states argue that they can use laws from the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment to defend their anti-gun statutes. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War ended when states passed laws to prevent formerly enslaved people from getting firearms. Some courts might even accept these arguments, but it is delaying the inevitable.<\/p>\n

SCOTUS laid down a straightforward test for gun laws. If a law is inconsistent with the plain text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, it must be thrown out. This new test puts the burden on the states to prove that their law is compatible with the Second Amendment.<\/strong><\/p>\n