this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
18 points (68.8% liked)

libertarianism

396 readers
1 users here now

About us

An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.

Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism

Rules

1. Stay on topicWe are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.

2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.

3. Stay constructive and informationalIn general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!

4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal judge for the second time overturned California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just a question, why the hell does something need "historical basis" for it to be legal/illegal?

[–] foofy@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Because that's what the supreme court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

They just made that up, but that's where we're at now.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The Bruen test is based on three things text, history, and tradition. When evaluating a law that implicates the 2A under it you compare the law to the original intent of the amendment. This intent is found by first reading the text, analyzing historical basis (specifically the founding period till the 1860s), and looking to historical traditions.

Since the Constitution is the highest law of the land it supercedes all lower laws, making any contrary lower law unlawful.

Basically the reasoning behind this kind of test to ensure that protections aren't stripped by redefining or reinterpreting phrases.

For an example of how that might look in a different context here's a snippet of the 1A "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Someone 50 years from now could read that an conclude (wrongly) the right to petition the government is a collective right and not something held by each individual. Under a Bruen style test courts must not use that new understanding but the original one intended by it's writers.

[–] zhenyapav@lemmy.zhenyapav.com 6 points 1 year ago

To be honest, we need a community for uplifting libertarian news... Maybe it's just my negativity bias, but there's just too much news about this world going to shit.