Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

It's a matter of due process, as I understand the concern.

To be fair, Thomas has written that every major due process/14th Amendment decision in the last 70 years has been wrongly decided, so this should not be a surprise.

I agree with this ruling 8-1.

I disagree with the dissent.


Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing that “not a single historical regulation justifies that statute at issue.”

“Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more. I respectfully dissent,” Thomas wrote.

Based on the logic of the originalism-heavy decision they’re walking back, Thomas is probably correct.

Granted, I suppose I should be mildly pleased to see a push toward more options for gun control. (Though I might be more libertarian on the topic than a lot of folks here) 

One aspect of originalism is to "vote", or decide, on that basis, not whether a policy is right or not.

Otherwise, we get a court making policy.

The ruling does "make sense", that isn't the point.  

He is for sure correct, but that's not the same as being right in this instance.

I'm mostly all about originalism.

This is an exception. It may not be correct, but it's right.

In this case, it's about a domestic abuser (or at least one with a restraining order), which is a concept the founders almost assuredly wouldn't have recognized. 

It's an odd spot because once you start putting in exceptions because they're "right" you shift from originalism to things being a living document. And people have different outlooks at what "right" is. 

If we live in a world with a healthy amount of gun control, this aligns with that. If we want one where there's a broad second amendment and originalist interpretations, it doesn't. And if it's just vibes, that's an unstable way to work through the law.