Subject: Re: “You People”
Got a link? I think the 14th amendment has something to say about that and I'd like to see if they address it.

It was a discussion I saw on TV, maybe on the Beeb, maybe on Amanpour. I didn't bother to take notes on that one.

This is what Google's net sifter says. Apparently Scalia wants it both ways: modern weapons protected, but not modern security measures.

An originalist interpretation does not automatically ban modern background checks based on the fact that they did not exist in 1791

. Instead, the legal debate centers on whether contemporary regulations align with the "text, history, and tradition" of gun laws at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.

The originalist framework for evaluating gun control was cemented in the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. It requires courts to determine if a modern firearm regulation is consistent with historical regulations, using analogy to bridge the gap between the 18th century and today.

Arguments against background checks

Some legal challenges and interpretations argue against modern background checks by contending they have no direct historical parallel and are therefore unconstitutional under a strict originalist view. The difficulty is that the technology and scope of modern checks are far removed from anything the founders could have conceived. Critics of background checks may also argue that the Bruen test is flawed and can be manipulated to produce biased results.

The originalist debate over new technology

The question of how to apply 18th-century principles to 21st-century issues is a central challenge for originalists. Justice Antonin Scalia, a leading originalist, acknowledged this problem in his majority opinion for District of Columbia v. Heller. He noted that the right to "bear arms" is not limited to 18th-century weapons, implying that the Second Amendment applies to modern guns. However, the exact method for analogizing new regulations like background checks to old laws remains a subject of intense debate.

I don't see how the 14th amendment is relevant here?

Steve