AWA over at GunfreeZone worries that the anti-gun folks will start using the gun laws of the old west to bolster their attacks on Bruen. The theory that some towns in the old West prohibited residents from having guns to attack the 2A is not a new claim. Gun controllers were using that same stupid argument during the gun control arguments of the 1990’s. That is a large part of New York’s line of argument in the Bruen case.
SCOTUS already addressed this issue:
Finally, respondents point to the slight uptick in gun regulation during the late-19th century. As the Court suggested in Heller, however, late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight intoNew York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022)
the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence. In addition, the vast majority of the statutes that respondents invoke come from the Western Territories. The bare existence of these localized restrictions cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of an otherwise enduring American tradition permitting public carry. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 614. Moreover, these territorial laws were rarely subject to judicial scrutiny, and absent any evidence explaining why these unprecedented prohibitions on all public carry were understood to comport with the Second Amendment, they do little to inform “the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment.” Ibid.; see
also The Federalist No. 37, p. 229. Finally, these territorial restrictions deserve little weight because they were, consistent with the transitory nature of territorial government, short lived. Some were held unconstitutional shortly after passage, and others did not survive a Territory’s admission to the Union as a State. Pp. 58–62.