The Washington Post: The Supreme Court said its guidance that gun laws must align with U.S. “history and tradition” was misunderstood. What does that mean for hundreds of legal challenges to gun laws?

The Supreme Court said its guidance that gun laws must align with U.S. “history and tradition” was misunderstood. What does that mean for hundreds of legal challenges to gun laws?

The Supreme Court upended gun laws nationwide. Mass confusion has followed.www.washingtonpost.com The Supreme Court said its guidance that gun laws must align with U.S. “history and tradition” was misunderstood. What does that mean for hundreds of legal challenges to gun laws?

Guns: Must follow history and tradition Office of the Presidency: fuck checks and balances, who cares what a bunch of dead guys said 250 years ago?

Muskets and cannons only....got it

Thomas WROTE that Bruhn decision. So he must know, right?

Whatever makes their political buddies happy at a given moment, apparently.

You mean like requiring firearms be handed into the sheriff at the town limits?

if that were true, wouldn't muskets be the only weapon Americans could legally own and use?

Look, I think you guys need to start applying the Biden Standard to #SCOTUS: If nobody can make sense of what the hell Clarence Thomas (76), Samuel Alito (74) and John Roberts (69) are saying, we need to start asking hard questions about their cognitive acuity. Right?

For people who grew up on '50s TV westerns...

It means that someone on the SCOTUS is going to sharpen his originalism pencil. Originalist interpretation is quite flexible, so I'm certain it will wind up supporting exactly what they really meant.

What it means is the US history and tradition of mass shooting will continue

The misunderstanding is the Supreme Court’s.

Does „history and tradition“ mean that candidates for presidency can be shot? I can remember one.

The Republican Supreme court makes shit up as it goes