logo czasopisma

Artykuły

Tom 55 Nr 2 (2025): Prawo i Więź nr 2 (55) 2025

Historyczna analogia jako quasi oryginalizm. Uwagi na tle sprawy Bruen oraz „postbruenowskiego” orzecznictwa w zakresie konstytucyjności art. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3)

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI55.8762
Przesłane
4 marca 2024
Opublikowane
5 czerwca 2025
Wersje

Abstrakt

This article raises the issue of the impact of Bruen -  a judgment which, within the framework of broadly understood originalism, creates a new method of interpretation based on historical analogy - on the example of how the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) has been assessed in cases, in which Second Amendment restrictions extend to illegal users, i.e. United States v. Harrison, United States v. Conelly, and United States v. Daniels. The Bruen ruling itself is controversial, for instance due to the alleged challenges in applying this precedent by lower courts. The interpretation of the Constitution by the federal Supreme Court - an institution currently identified with the republican approach or even reduced to the role of a political emanation of Donald Trump's presidency - will remain the subject of not only a strictly legal, but also a political/attitudinal evaluation made by lower-level courts in casu. This may result in transformation of the common law system itself, as a precedent "using" the concept of originalism or living constitution will cease to be a binding guide in a process of law application, and instead becomes a substitute instrument for the legislative power tin order to enact a specific policy. Therefore, the abovementioned risks require ongoing analysis of how Bruen influences selected issues regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922

Bibliografia

  1. Adams Hayden, „United States v. Daniels: the Post-Bruen Application of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) to an Unlawful User of Marijuana Who Carries a Firearm
  2. While Sober” 1 December 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4792083.
  3. Alschuler Albert W., „Twilight-Zone Originalism: The Peculiar Reasoning and Unfortunate Consequences of New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen”
  4. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, nr 1 (2023):1-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4330457.
  5. Barrett Randy E., Solum, Lawrence B., “Originalism after Dobbs, Bruen, and Kennedy: The role of history and tradition” Northwestern University Law Review, nr 1 (2023):433-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4338811.
  6. Blocher Joseph, Reva B. Siegel, „Race and Guns, Courts and Democracy” Harvard Law Review Forum, 135 (2022): 449-462.
  7. Calvert Clay, Mary-Rose Papandrea, „The End of Balancing? Text, History & Tradition in First Amendment Speech Cases After Bruen” Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 18 (2023): 60-118.
  8. Charles Jacob D., „The Dead Hand of a Silent Past: Bruen, Gun Rights, and the Shackles of History” Duke Law Journal, nr 67 (2023):68-154.
  9. Charles Patrick J., „The Fugazi Second Amendment: Bruen’s Text, History, and Tradition Problem and How to Fix It” Cleveland State Law Review, nr 3 (2023): 623-718.
  10. Czeczot Piotr, „Druga poprawka do konstytucji USA. Próba wykładni” Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, nr 4 (2019): 268-279.
  11. Denning Brannon P., Glenn Harlan Reynolds, „Retconning Heller: Five Takes on New York Rifle & PistolAssociation, Inc. v. Bruen” William & Mary Law Review, nr 1 (2023): 1-48.
  12. Galloway Russell W., „Means-End Scrutiny in American Constitutional Law” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, nr 2 (1988): 449-496.
  13. Kopel David B., „Restoring the Right to Bear Arms: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” Cato Supreme Court Review (2021-2022): 305-333.
  14. Lee Cynthia, „Strenghtening the law of self-defence after Bruen” New York University Law Review, nr 6 (2023): 1905-1927.
  15. Li Danny, „Antisubordinating the Second Amendment” Yale Law Journal, nr 6 (2023): 1821-1868.
  16. Longchamps de Bérier Franciszek, „Religious Freedom and Legal Education” Forum Prawnicze, nr 6 (2021): 22-33. https://doi.org/10.32082/fp.6(68).2021.999.
  17. Rosenthal Lawrence, „Nonoriginalist Laws in an Originalist World: Litigating Original Meaning from Heller To Bruen” American University Law Review, Nr 2 (2024): 1-16.
  18. Ruben Eric, Rosanna Smart, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, „One Year Post- Bruen: An Empirical Assessment”,Virgnia Law Review Online, nr 20 (2024): 20-51.
  19. Samaha Adam M., „Is Bruen Constitutional? On the Methodology that Saved Most Gun Licensing” New York University Law Review, 98 (2023): 1928-1949.
  20. Smith Jr. Fred O., „Local Sovereign Immunity” Columbia Law Review, nr 409 (2016): 409-487.
  21. Smith Mark W., „Not All History Is Created Equal: In the Post-Bruen World, the Critical Period for Historical Analogues Is when the Second Amendment Was Ratified in 1791, and not 1868” 1 October 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
  22. ssrn.4248297.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.