" the matter of Worth v. Jacobson, a challenge to Minnesota's ban
on 18-20 year olds possessing certain firearms, which has now made
its way to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a somewhat shocking
display of Constitutional ignorance, Minnesota Attorney General Liz Kramer
made some arguments that will prove our point that they will say anything to
keep you disarmed. Learn more and arm yourself with education today."
Wheeler actually said,
...the first prong of the Bruan test the
scope of the right because plaintiffs
have the burden of proof on that prong
and came forward with no evidence at all
that 18 to 20y olds have ever been
considered part of the people or the
political Community.
She uses "the people" in the context of "the people's right to keep and bear arms".
After she was called out for her use of the word "ever," she immediately called in the goal post movers to change that statement by adding "as it applies to the Second Amendment."
When asked about the 26th Amendment (18-20 yr olds being granted the right to vote), she retreated to the argument that Bruen said that shouldn't count because Bruen required historical analogues from much earlier than the 1900s.
See what she did? The historical analogue test is squarely placed on the Government's shoulders. They have the burden to show there was a tradition and history of passing laws similar to what they are advocating for now. To argue that the 25th Amendment (which crushes her statement when she said "ever") is out-of-bounds via Bruen is not correct, because she's trying to turn Bruen on its head. There's nothing in the Bren test that says arguments
against a given bill/law are supposed to remain in the 1780-1820 timeframe -- only that arguments
supporting the new law must adhere to that analogue timeframe.
Lawyers....pay close attention or they'll have you believing them, too.