an understanding would justify

Second, to the extent that intoxication was historically viewed as a “short-term illness” or “temporary insanity,” the court reasoned that such an understanding would justify disarming individuals only during actual periods of intoxication. Third, historical regulations that disarmed “dangerous” individuals were motivated by different political and social purposes, and regulated different categories of individuals that did not include “ordinary drunkards,” the court concluded. Based on this analysis, the court held that the government failed to carry its burden of justifying Section 922(g)(3)’s application to Daniels under the Second Amendment. สล็อต เว็บตรง