I think for plaintiffs to be right, you would have to think that that is not a historical tradition that Bruen would have recognized. And I think that is impossible to square with what Bruen told us about the need to identify historical precursors and to assess whether or not our forefathers would have thought those precursors were permissible under the Second Amendment.
—No. 126. Ronald Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 23-1900, slip op. at 12–13 (3d Cir.)
Translation, since Bruen said that the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations
—New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) that there must be some regulations from that time that would be acceptable under Bruen
This argument has been made many times. “If Bruen means what Bruen says, there are no modern infringements that would stand. Since the Supreme Court presumed that some infringements are constitutional, or that they were not addressing questions regarding those other infringements, then Bruen can’t mean what it says.”
“No true scotsman…”