I found this opinion on SCOTUS blog

[Palmaris]

https://www.nyulawreview.org/forum/2024/05/the-dog-that-didnt-bark-is-rewriting-the-second-amendment/

[BAJ475]

https://www.nyulawreview.org/forum/2...ond-amendment/

Libtard POS! Now you have the explanation. What Professor Vars never mentions is the language of the 2A itself. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So we are not faced with a silent dog in the night. What Bruen instructs is how to find possible exceptions to the Second Amendment's unqualified command. Can't find an exception, then the Second Amendment means exactly what is says!

[CrazyCobraManTim]

Read that yesterday while I was looking for the SCOTUS Rahimi + other items Grant of Cert - but it's Today (May 16th) not May 15th. Waiting patiently.....

[Rickybillegas]

Ha, ha! I read it. More 'intellectual' pablum borne of the almost hair pulling frustration by leftists that cannot dig up the proper analogues within the formative period to justify their precious gun laws.
The core of his argument seems to be that the absence of proper analogues should not deter the upholding of gun laws. Rather, the analysis should be based on whether the laws in question address issues
that are important enough today that were not necessarily important enough historically during that same period. It's the old "things change and the constitution needs to be interpreted in light of modern societal
demands" argument. Kind of like "back then, there were only single shot muzzle loading muskets, and now there are now semi automatic AR15's with 30 round mags" blah, blah, blah.

Since Heller and Bruen, there has sprung an entire cottage industry among the intellectual class bent on deconstructing these SCOTUS rulings.
They are often fine with defending broad and protective interpretations of the other amendments, but not so the second. Same 'ol, same 'ol.

[BAJ475]

Ha, ha! I read it. More 'intellectual' pablum borne of the almost hair pulling frustration by leftists that cannot dig up the proper analogues within the formative period to justify their precious gun laws.
The core of his argument seems to be that the absence of proper analogues should not deter the upholding of gun laws. Rather, the analysis should be based on whether the laws in question address issues
that are important enough today that were not necessarily important enough historically during that same period. It's the old "things change and the constitution needs to be interpreted in light of modern societal
demands" argument. Kind of like "back then, there were only single shot muzzle loading muskets, and now there are now semi automatic AR15's with 30 round mags" blah, blah, blah.

Since Heller and Bruen, there has sprung an entire cottage industry among the intellectual class bent on deconstructing these SCOTUS rulings.
They are often fine with defending broad and protective interpretations of the other amendments, but not so the second. Same 'ol, same 'ol.

The things change so the constitution needs to be interpreted in light of modern societal demands argument ignores the fact that the founding fathers anticipated such need. But they left that task to the people, not the courts, by providing a process to amend the constitution.

[Rickybillegas]

The things change so the constitution needs to be interpreted in light of modern societal demands argument ignores the fact that the founding fathers anticipated such need. But they left that task to the people, not the courts, by providing a process to amend the constitution.

It's obvious that fact you point out is way too frustrating to certain courts, so they will bypass the entire process and legislate by judicial fiat ("don't you dare bring up the 2nd amendment in my court room, this is NY!!!!").

[AlmostHeaven]

Since Heller and Bruen, there has sprung an entire cottage industry among the intellectual class bent on deconstructing these SCOTUS rulings.
They are often fine with defending broad and protective interpretations of the other amendments, but not so the second. Same 'ol, same 'ol.

Liberals invent entirely new rights out of thin air and claim constitutional grounding, yet simultaneously argue that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed protects nothing, not even banning all handguns.

I have long ago stopped treating any anti-gun scholars, politicians, and judges as acting in good faith.