Meanwhile In America...Won't Someone Please Think Of The...

...Ancestors?

From Tierney Sneed of CNN:

A federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a conservative-leaning appeals court ruled Thursday.

The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s expansion of Second Amendment rights last year in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

“Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said...

As for those threatened by a firearm-fuelled escalation of domestic violence?

Well, it appears that it doesn't matter what they will or will not accept.

****

What's it all about this time Alfie?

Well, it's this Federalist Society's/current Supreme Court majority's obsession, developed as a way to suppress, and even reverse, all things progressive via 'Constitutional Originalism'.

Harry Litman, writing in the Atlantic, explains the origin story of this codswallop:

Originalism—the idea that the meaning of each provision of the United States Constitution becomes fixed at the time of its enactment—in its contemporary form traces back to the advocacy of a few conservative judges, most prominently Antonin Scalia, in the mid-1980s. At the time, it was a rebel yell. The few self-styled originalists were railing against a long line of judicial precedents, particularly a set of Warren Court rulings that they viewed as mere expressions of liberal policy preferences...

{snip}

...To understand what (Constitutional Originalism is) — and why it matters so much — begin with the two main defenses of originalism, as propounded by Scalia along with Justice William Rehnquist, Judge Robert Bork, and the core members of the then-fledgling Federalist Society (in the Reaganland-fuelled early 1980's when this was all conjured/invented). The first was the concept’s supposed determinacy. Scalia savaged various theories of what he termed the “living Constitution” as hopelessly open-ended and unpredictable. Discerning the Constitution’s original meaning, by contrast, was fundamentally a down-the-middle judicial task.

The second tenet was originalism’s legitimacy—and the illegitimacy of a “living Constitution”—as an essential corollary to the very idea of a written constitution. The point of writing the Constitution down, originalists argued, was to fix its meaning. Any monkeying with meaning thereafter is the province of the legislative branch or the popular will, and the courts’ job is to set them straight...

Sometimes one has to wonder if these fine folks will only be happy when absolutely no one but they and theirs get to do the living and dying in their town.

The town they and theirs have so hard to turn from Bedford Falls into Pottersville.

Or some such thing.



.