In the ongoing battle over the Second Amendment, where the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision demands that modern gun laws align with our nation’s “historical tradition,” a sharp-eyed 2A attorney is dropping truth bombs: not every dusty old statute from the 18th or 19th century deserves a pedestal. Take Louisiana’s Black Codes post-Civil War—these weren’t mere regulations; they were outright racist tools designed to disarm freed Black citizens while arming white militias. As the attorney points out in a must-read analysis, cherry-picking these discriminatory edicts as “historical analogues” for today’s restrictions is like using Jim Crow laws to justify poll taxes. They weren’t neutral public safety measures; they were mechanisms of oppression, unworthy of emulation in a free society.

This distinction matters profoundly for gun owners because it exposes the anti-2A crowd’s sleight of hand. Courts and historians have long warned against anachronistic analogies, yet gun control advocates trot out Black Codes or colonial-era “dangerous persons” bans as if they’re apples-to-apples with universal background checks or assault weapon bans. Bruen’s framework—rooted in text, history, and tradition—rejects this nonsense, insisting on laws with comparable burdens on comparably situated folks. The implication? Racially motivated relics like those in Louisiana crumble under scrutiny, bolstering challenges to feel-good restrictions that disproportionately hit law-abiding citizens. It’s a reminder that true historical precedent favors the armed citizen, not the state’s selective disarmament.

For the 2A community, this is rocket fuel: arm yourselves with facts, not folklore. Share this analysis widely—it’s a scalpel slicing through the left’s historical revisionism, paving the way for victories that honor the Founders’ vision of a well-regulated militia drawn from a free populace. If discriminatory laws don’t count, what’s left? A robust right to keep and bear arms, unapologetically. Stay vigilant; the fight’s just heating up.