Supreme Court Weighs Firearms and Federal Reserve Independence Amid Trump's Bid to Disarm Hawaii Gun Law
The Supreme Court is grappling with two contentious cases that have sparked intense debate over firearms laws and the nation's central bank. The court's recent Second Amendment precedent, which established a historical tradition test for gun laws, has come under scrutiny in a challenge to a Hawaii law allowing concealed carry on private property.
In a dramatic turn of events, Republican-appointed justices expressed outrage over an 1865 Louisiana law that aimed to restrict African Americans' right to bear arms. These justices claimed the old law was "part of an effort" to disarm Black people and cited its racist intentions to justify their challenge to Hawaii's modern gun law.
However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson injected a note of caution into the proceedings, suggesting that the court's new precedent may be flawed due to its failure to account for the complexities of historical regulation. "I guess I'm wondering whether that doesn't signal a problem with the Bruen test," she said during Tuesday's hearing in Wolford v. Lopez.
Despite some signs that the court might walk back the Bruen precedent, allowing gun restrictions for domestic violence perpetrators, it seems increasingly likely that Hawaii's law will be struck down. The challengers to the law pointed out that California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey have similar bans on carrying concealed guns onto private property.
Meanwhile, a Federal Reserve case may also defy President Trump's bid to fire a board member. In Wednesday's hearing in Trump v. Cook, judges seemed inclined to protect the central bank's independence from presidential interference. Even Trump-appointed Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns that removing a Fed member would "weaken, if not shatter" the institution's autonomy.
With the justices set to return to the bench only later this February, the court is now taking a break before ruling on other cases, including an emergency appeal to block California's Democratic-friendly congressional map ahead of the midterms.
The Supreme Court is grappling with two contentious cases that have sparked intense debate over firearms laws and the nation's central bank. The court's recent Second Amendment precedent, which established a historical tradition test for gun laws, has come under scrutiny in a challenge to a Hawaii law allowing concealed carry on private property.
In a dramatic turn of events, Republican-appointed justices expressed outrage over an 1865 Louisiana law that aimed to restrict African Americans' right to bear arms. These justices claimed the old law was "part of an effort" to disarm Black people and cited its racist intentions to justify their challenge to Hawaii's modern gun law.
However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson injected a note of caution into the proceedings, suggesting that the court's new precedent may be flawed due to its failure to account for the complexities of historical regulation. "I guess I'm wondering whether that doesn't signal a problem with the Bruen test," she said during Tuesday's hearing in Wolford v. Lopez.
Despite some signs that the court might walk back the Bruen precedent, allowing gun restrictions for domestic violence perpetrators, it seems increasingly likely that Hawaii's law will be struck down. The challengers to the law pointed out that California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey have similar bans on carrying concealed guns onto private property.
Meanwhile, a Federal Reserve case may also defy President Trump's bid to fire a board member. In Wednesday's hearing in Trump v. Cook, judges seemed inclined to protect the central bank's independence from presidential interference. Even Trump-appointed Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns that removing a Fed member would "weaken, if not shatter" the institution's autonomy.
With the justices set to return to the bench only later this February, the court is now taking a break before ruling on other cases, including an emergency appeal to block California's Democratic-friendly congressional map ahead of the midterms.
. Can't we just have some common sense laws in place instead of arguing over history? And what's with all these old laws from 1865 that are causing problems now? Can't we just focus on the present and make decisions based on what's best for everyone? 
. Isn't that like, a good thing? I mean, if someone tries to fire a Fed member because they disagree with them, isn't that kinda like trying to take away their voice or something? 
. I mean, can't they see how that's just a way to downplay the complexities of history and not address the real issues at hand? It's like they're trying to rewrite history rather than learn from it 
.
. Newsflash: the Fed is supposed to be independent, not some tool for his own political agenda! 
It's like he thinks he can just fire people and control the economy through sheer force of will 
.
And then Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson throws a curveball by pointing out that our new gun law precedent might be flawed... talk about a double-edged sword! 
Meanwhile, President Trump wants to fire a Federal Reserve member and Brett Kavanaugh is all like "no way, Jose!" 
Like, can we just get back on track already? 
. I'm still trying to wrap my head around Trump wanting to take away gun rights and then justifying it by saying old laws were racist? It's like he's rewriting history or something... anyway, back in my day we had real leaders who didn't use guns as a way to control people. And can you believe the Supreme Court is even considering his claims? It's all so politicized 
.
.
.
.
. We need to have a real conversation about public safety and how to regulate firearms in a way that makes sense.
The thought of just walking onto private property and being all like "Hey, I got a gun" is just tooooo much 
. Plus, can you imagine the drama that'd ensue when someone tries to do a little "stand your ground" and ends up getting sued outta their wits 
about gun laws, I think we're already seeing too many loopholes being exploited. This "historical tradition test" thing seems like a cop-out to me 
, but I still have my doubts.
This is just another example of how our laws need some serious tweaking 
. We can't keep relying on outdated thinking and expect everything to work out 
.
. It's like they're trying to turn the Second Amendment into a joke. First off, what even is this "historical tradition test" that Justice Jackson is talking about? Sounds like a bunch of semantics to me. And don't even get me started on how some justices are cherry-picking laws from 1865 to justify their own biases 
.
