Supreme Court Justice Jackson Calls for Scrapping Gun Law Test in Landmark Move to Transform Firearms Regulations
The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a federal law aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people is too broad. The decision came as the court evaluated a law that makes it a crime for regular marijuana users to possess guns.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the court's "historical tradition" test for evaluating gun regulations, calling it "unworkable." She argued that the test, established in the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, requires judges to sift through centuries-old evidence rather than considering whether a gun rule addresses a modern problem.
Justice Neil Gorsuch cited historical laws restricting the rights of habitual drinkers as evidence that similar laws do not apply to modern marijuana users. Jackson agreed with this reasoning but said the test itself is flawed and should be reconsidered in a future case.
The court's decision may have implications for a pending case involving a Hawaii law that requires gun owners to get permission before bringing a firearm into private property open to the public. The justices are expected to rule on the Hawaii law by the end of the month, potentially providing more guidance on the historical tradition test.
According to Notre Dame Law School associate professor Haley Proctor, the court's narrow decision in favor of a drug user may indicate that the justices will limit the impact of the Hawaii decision. Proctor notes that lower courts are still struggling to apply the historical tradition test, and the court's guidance may not provide clarity on banning firearms in "sensitive" public places.
Gun control advocates, including Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, agree with Jackson that the Bruen test should be scrapped, arguing that 21st-century gun violence cannot be solved with 18th-century solutions.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the court's "historical tradition" test for evaluating gun regulations, calling it "unworkable." She argued that the test, established in the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, requires judges to sift through centuries-old evidence rather than considering whether a gun rule addresses a modern problem.
Justice Neil Gorsuch cited historical laws restricting the rights of habitual drinkers as evidence that similar laws do not apply to modern marijuana users. Jackson agreed with this reasoning but said the test itself is flawed and should be reconsidered in a future case.
The court's decision may have implications for a pending case involving a Hawaii law that requires gun owners to get permission before bringing a firearm into private property open to the public. The justices are expected to rule on the Hawaii law by the end of the month, potentially providing more guidance on the historical tradition test.
According to Notre Dame Law School associate professor Haley Proctor, the court's narrow decision in favor of a drug user may indicate that the justices will limit the impact of the Hawaii decision. Proctor notes that lower courts are still struggling to apply the historical tradition test, and the court's guidance may not provide clarity on banning firearms in "sensitive" public places.
Gun control advocates, including Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, agree with Jackson that the Bruen test should be scrapped, arguing that 21st-century gun violence cannot be solved with 18th-century solutions.
News, Global