Just as there was no historical justification for disarming a citizen of sound mind, there is no tradition that supports disarming a sober citizen who is not currently under an impairing influence. Indeed, it is helpful to compare the tradition surrounding the insane and the tradition surrounding the intoxicated side-by-side. The Founders purportedly institutionalized the insane and stripped them of their guns; but they allowed alcoholics to possess firearms while sober.
We must ask, in Bruen-style analogical reasoning, which is [defendant Patrick] Daniels more like: a categorically “insane” person?
Powered by WPeMatico
