{"id":92094,"date":"2023-04-22T19:50:16","date_gmt":"2023-04-23T00:50:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=92094"},"modified":"2023-04-22T19:50:16","modified_gmt":"2023-04-23T00:50:16","slug":"92094","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=92094","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

HANSON V. DC: \u201cLARGE CAPACITY\u201d MAGAZINE BAN<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve only been up for a couple of hours (as I begin typing), and the news is already full of stupidity that I\u2019ll need to address. I\u2019ll lead off with a case challenging Washington, DC\u2019s \u201clarge capacity\u201d magazine ban,\u00a0Hanson v. DC<\/a>. The judge, one Rudolph Contreras, denied a preliminary injunction against the ban. His\u2026\u00a0reasoning<\/i>\u00a0is\u2026\u00a0remarkable<\/i>. Or something; I\u2019m trying to be somewhat polite.<\/p>\n

A weapon may have some useful purposes in both civilian and military contexts, but if it is most useful in military service, it is not protected by the Second Amendment.
\n[\u2026]
\n[Large capacity magazines] are not covered by the [2A] because they are most useful in military service.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oddly, Contreras cites\u00a0HELLER<\/a>\u00a0in making that point. I can\u2019t find that argument in HELLER, which was largely about whether\u00a0non-<\/b>\u00a0military weapons could be regulated, and how, but there is this.<\/p>\n

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service\u2014M\u201316 rifles and the like\u2014may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment\u2019s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.\u00a0It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.<\/b><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rather the opposite of Contreras\u2019 weasel-wording, eh? Indeed, HELLER even cites the earlier\u00a0MILLER<\/a>, which establishes that militarily-useful arms are protected by the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a \u2018shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length\u2019 at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Having chucked decades of SCOTUS precedent already, Contreras proceeds to demonstrate an amazing lack of judicial awareness of current events and Supreme Court decisions. Now that he\u2019s established in his own deluded mind that standard capacity magazines are not 2A-protected, he addresses whether this particular restriction of such magazines is permissable.<\/p>\n

WARNING: If you\u2019re drinking, swallow before proceeding, for the protection of your screen.<\/i><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Under this \u201ctwo-step approach,\u201d a court must \u201cask first whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment; if it does, then . . . go on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Umm\u2026\u00a0BRUEN<\/a>, moron. (All right; \u201csomewhat polite\u201d is off the table after all.) Associate Justice Thomas spent a fair amount of ink taking lower courts to task for continuing to use the two-step approach.<\/p>\n

The Court rejects that two-part approach<\/b><\/span>\u00a0as having one step too many. Step one is broad y consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment\u2019s text, as informed by history. But\u00a0Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny<\/b><\/span>\u00a0in the Second Amendment context.\u00a0Heller\u2019s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
\n<\/b>[\u2026]
\nTo justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.
\n[\u2026]
\nThe government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

HELLER rejected two-step government interest scrutiny.<\/p>\n

MCDONALD rejected two-step government interest scrutiny.<\/p>\n

BRUEN rejected two-step government interest scrutiny, and bitch-slapped lower courts for continuing to use it in direct defiance of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

At this point, I wouldn\u2019t blame Clarence Thomas if he is looking for a 2X4 and Contreras\u2019 home address.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

HANSON V. DC: \u201cLARGE CAPACITY\u201d MAGAZINE BAN I\u2019ve only been up for a couple of hours (as I begin typing), and the news is already full of stupidity that I\u2019ll need to address. I\u2019ll lead off with a case challenging Washington, DC\u2019s \u201clarge capacity\u201d magazine ban,\u00a0Hanson v. DC. The judge, one Rudolph Contreras, denied a … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92094","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-crap-for-brains","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92094","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=92094"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92094\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":92095,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92094\/revisions\/92095"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=92094"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=92094"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=92094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}