In today's gun rights cases, historians are in hot demand. Here's why - Article NPR

[AlmostHeaven]

And hopefully before then one of these sensitive place lawsuits (NY, MD, NJ)
will reach SCOTUS and get this done for good.
NY and NJ have already been ruled on by appellate court panels.

I remain cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will decide one of the sensitive places cases in the 2024-2025 term.

[Mute]

Wishful thinking on the part of NPR and the anti-gun forces. A few more cases should dispel them of the notion that these fool academics serve any purpose in future court cases.

[Rickybillegas]

The 'airy fairy' history gives certain judges bent on ruling against BRUEN enough legitimacy (in their view) to cloak their faulty opinions in enough legal jargon to fool the public and keep the game going. They don't fool honest 2nd amendment Judges, or experts so much, but they can' kick the can' down the road and that's a big gain for them.

The perfect case up to this point is Antonyuk v Hochul. The very anti-2nd amendment 2nd appeals court took the case and gave their game up in various statements. One such statements was something to the effect "we've got to be careful here, the supreme court is watching". Translation: "we want to rule 100% in favor of the state, but if we do, it's an almost guarantee for an interlocutory cert. by SCOTUS (and we can't have that)".

So what did they do? In a travesty of an opinion, they took the entire 'airy fairy' historical analysis and bought it, ruling for the legitimacy of EVERY sensitive place law, except to keep SCOTUS away (for the time being) they knocked down the 'vampire rule' and restriction on churches. Evey other district and appeals court up to then had ruled many of the sensitive place laws as unconstitutional.

So there their ruling sits for the time being presumably safe from SCOTUS (for now) and could be months or years before it gets kicked up to SCOTUS.
'Airy fairy' history served it's purpose.
Mission accomplished.

[AlmostHeaven]

The 'airy fairy' history gives certain judges bent on ruling against BRUEN enough legitimacy (in their view) to cloak their faulty opinions in enough legal jargon to fool the public and keep the game going. They don't fool honest 2nd amendment Judges, or experts so much, but they can' kick the can' down the road and that's a big gain for them.

The perfect case up to this point is Antonyuk v Hochul. The very anti-2nd amendment 2nd appeals court took the case and gave their game up in various statements. One such statements was something to the effect "we've got to be careful here, the supreme court is watching". Translation: "we want to rule 100% in favor of the state, but if we do, it's an almost guarantee for an interlocutory cert. by SCOTUS (and we can't have that)".

So what did they do? In a travesty of an opinion, they took the entire 'airy fairy' historical analysis and bought it, ruling for the legitimacy of EVERY sensitive place law, except to keep SCOTUS away (for the time being) they knocked down the 'vampire rule' and restriction on churches. Evey other district and appeals court up to then had ruled many of the sensitive place laws as unconstitutional.

So there their ruling sits for the time being presumably safe from SCOTUS (for now) and could be months or years before it gets kicked up to SCOTUS.
'Airy fairy' history served it's purpose.
Mission accomplished.

The blame squarely lands on the composition of the Supreme Court itself.

The Federalist Society either erred or deliberately recommended passive moderates to President Trump. I curse every day at how Democrats blowing 2016, combined with the egotistical arrogance of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, granted the opportunity of a lifetime for a Republican president to appoint three brand-new Supreme Court Justices, yet 66.7% of the new members vote as weak-kneed establishmentarians. The two most originalist justices push 80 years old and hail from the times of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush!