J. Michael Luttig, a conservative who used to serve on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. He argues that the New York law at issue can be upheld if evaluated under text, history and tradition. He said that "a constitutional right to bear arms outside the home, in public and in public places, has never been unrestricted, and indeed, has historically been restricted in many public places." ...
Writing for a group of law professors, Donald Verrilli, former solicitor general for the Obama administration, warned that "text, history and tradition" don't always speak with one voice "and that a test of whether a law passes constitutional muster thus cannot always depend on how long a law has been on the books." ...
"It is clear, for example, that airplanes are the kind of 'sensitive places' where legislatures should be able to prohibit weapons," Verrilli argued in briefs in support of New York. "However, Congress did not regulate firearms in airplanes until the 1960's, many years after airlines began commercial service. Thus, it is hard to see how a court applying a purely historical test could uphold restriction on weapons in flight."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/29/politics/second-amendment-kavanaugh-barrett/index.html
A handgun may be practical for self-defense in some circumstances.
Should the gun laws that apply to such handguns differ from weapons often chosen for mass murder such as the AR-15 used at such killings as Sandy Hook?
Is there are practical way to preserve the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, while restricting / preventing mayhem from malefactors?
Writing for a group of law professors, Donald Verrilli, former solicitor general for the Obama administration, warned that "text, history and tradition" don't always speak with one voice "and that a test of whether a law passes constitutional muster thus cannot always depend on how long a law has been on the books." ...
"It is clear, for example, that airplanes are the kind of 'sensitive places' where legislatures should be able to prohibit weapons," Verrilli argued in briefs in support of New York. "However, Congress did not regulate firearms in airplanes until the 1960's, many years after airlines began commercial service. Thus, it is hard to see how a court applying a purely historical test could uphold restriction on weapons in flight."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/29/politics/second-amendment-kavanaugh-barrett/index.html
A handgun may be practical for self-defense in some circumstances.
Should the gun laws that apply to such handguns differ from weapons often chosen for mass murder such as the AR-15 used at such killings as Sandy Hook?
Is there are practical way to preserve the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, while restricting / preventing mayhem from malefactors?