Someone else already pointed it out, but I'll reiterate it, the "wild west" actually had strict gun control laws. The movies show armed strangers riding into town. In reality, that stranger would need to report to the local sheriff's office and turn over his guns. (He'd get them back when he was leaving.)
When the Supreme Court ruled that any gun control measures had to have a historical precedent, they conveniently ignored what really happened in the wild west and pretended that the movie version was real life.
Long historical precedents are only important if they don't like the law. If they like the law, then they'll find justification even if they need to misquote some 15th century philosopher.
Someone else already pointed it out, but I'll reiterate it, the "wild west" actually had strict gun control laws. The movies show armed strangers riding into town. In reality, that stranger would need to report to the local sheriff's office and turn over his guns. (He'd get them back when he was leaving.)
When the Supreme Court ruled that any gun control measures had to have a historical precedent, they conveniently ignored what really happened in the wild west and pretended that the movie version was real life.
Curious that they would say that when there was no precedent to their reinterpretation of the second amendment.
Long historical precedents are only important if they don't like the law. If they like the law, then they'll find justification even if they need to misquote some 15th century philosopher.