Taking the occasional marijuana gummy shouldn't prohibit someone from buying a gun, but that's not because our Founding Fathers (if Justice Gorsusch is correct) were boozers. In GAGV’s latest Substack, "The Absurdity of Bruen: Why Are John Adams’s Drinking Habits Determining Today’s Gun Laws," Jon and legal intern Kelsey Frederick explain how the result of United States v. Hemani was correct, but the method was wildly wrong.
GAGV was the only gun violence prevention group to file a brief backing neither party, arguing that courts should determine gun laws based on the government’s interests in protecting public safety, not on uncertain and outdated history. For that reason, the occasional marijuana gummy should not bar someone from possessing guns.
That risk-based approach advocated by GAGV got a boost from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's concurrence, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which called for retiring the "failed Bruen experiment" in favor of weighing a law's real-world purpose against its burden on gun rights.
Jon was quoted in USA Today praising Jackson's opinion. The Substack explains how the current historical test is unstable and easily bent to reach whatever outcome a court wants. GAGV will keep pressing courts to return to judging gun laws on the risks they address today, not on contested history.
Read the full Substack here: The Absurdity of Bruen: Why Are John Adams’s Drinking Habits Determining Today’s Gun Laws?