Clarence Thomas's long victory

[Paladin]

From July, but the article gives us some perspective on the past as well as what the future looks like: Clarence Thomas's long victory

Perhaps even more importantly, Bruen announces a judicial standard of review that applies to all gun control laws throughout the United States. Such laws that are consistent with the history and tradition of the American right to keep and bear arms are constitutional; those that are inconsistent with history and tradition are not.

One week after the Bruen opinion was released, the court vacated decisions from federal appeals courts that had upheld bans on common rifles or magazines in Maryland, California, and New Jersey. It remanded the cases to the lower courts and told them to reconsider their decisions in light of Bruen’s history and tradition rule.

[puma guy]

From July, but the article gives us some perspective on the past as well as what the future looks like: Clarence Thomas's long victory

Perhaps even more importantly, Bruen announces a judicial standard of review that applies to all gun control laws throughout the United States. Such laws that are consistent with the history and tradition of the American right to keep and bear arms are constitutional; those that are inconsistent with history and tradition are not.

One week after the Bruen opinion was released, the court vacated decisions from federal appeals courts that had upheld bans on common rifles or magazines in Maryland, California, and New Jersey. It remanded the cases to the lower courts and told them to reconsider their decisions in light of Bruen’s history and tradition rule.

A good read. Still work to be done that I hope occurs sooner than later. I especially hope NY and Hochul go down in flames.

[Soccerdad1995]

It seems that the open flouting of the constitution that we are seeing in NY and CA should justify a judicial pre-emptive review of their proposed new gun restrictions, like what happened with voting laws in southern states after the end of the Civil War.

I know that these new laws have no actual force of law since they clearly violate the constitution (especially as interpreted in Bruen). However, it is still problematic to have laws on the books that law enforcement might erroneously try to enforce. I say erroneously because enforcing such laws would be a violation of their oaths of office. That could lead to very dangerous situations, to say the least.

Separately, do citizens have any legal recourse against law enforcement officers, or agencies, who commit crimes against them (assault, unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping) with the excuse of enforcing a "law" that is unconstitutional? Or are we forced to resort to recourse outside of the judicial system for these wrongs?