By John Crump. Apr 4, 2023

The United States of America is founded on the presumption of innocence. After the Supreme Court's landmark New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, there is now a presumption that gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can prove there was a similar law at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

According to the Bruen decision, the interest balancing test does not apply to Second Amendment cases. The courts can only rely on the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

This decision put most anti-gun politicians and advocates in a precarious position. Almost no 'gun control' existed at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification. With the combination of little to no supporting historical evidence and without leniency from the previous interest balancing test, 'gun control' advocates will have a much harder time of successfully passing legislation that will defeat SCOTUS's new test. The anti-gun side had to find something in history that would save 'gun control' laws.

Anti-gun state and 'gun control' advocates usually point to the Sir John Knight's Case that challenged the Statute of Northampton. According to the anti-gun side, the law forbids carrying a firearm in public. Still, most legal scholars agree that it banned the carrying of a gun in public only if the intent is to terrify the people. Without many other examples of 'gun control' laws, the anti-gun side must base their arguments on this case.

Unfortunately for the 'gun control' side, the Supreme Court addressed the Sir John Knight's Case and others like it. According to Footnote 11 of the Bruen decision, whenever multiple interpretations can be taken from a case, the Supreme Court will favor the interpretation that favors the Second Amendment. .....