Justice Jackson wants to scrap the Bruen test because it requires judges to respect the Constitution as it was written and understood, rather than treating the Second Amendment as a government permission slip that changes with political fashions.
The problem isn’t that Bruen is “unworkable.” The problem is that for the first time in decades, courts must prove a gun restriction is consistent with our nation’s history and tradition instead of simply rubber-stamping whatever lawmakers call “reasonable.”
If judges aren’t historians, neither are they legislators. Their job is to interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it to fit the latest public policy trend.
The Second Amendment was written in the 18th century for the same reason free speech was written in the 18th century: to protect fundamental rights from 21st-century politicians.
WASHINGTON – A Supreme Court that is often ideologically divided on gun control issues nonetheless unanimously agreed June 18 that a federal law aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people went too far.
But two of the court’s three liberal justices still want a course correction on how the court evaluates gun regulations.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the “historical tradition” test for gun rules that the court created in its landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is “unworkable.”
By Maureen Groppe
