The case in which the Court (briefly) examined Sir John Knight’s 1686 acquittal for walking into the church of St. Michael in Bristol during services armed and with the goal of frightening the congregation was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The issue at hand was whether New York’s 1911 “proper-cause” (or “may-issue”) licensing law that forced law-abiding applicants to prove a special, non-general need for self-defense in order to obtain a concealed carry permit was Constitutional. The Court’s job in Bruen wasn’t to decide whether New York’s restrictions were reasonable or sensible, but whether they violated the Constitution. Gladwell, like so most progressives, wants courts to legislate: it’s much easier to impose unpopular and undemocratic measures on the public if judges decide what’s “good policy.”

Another ethical problem with Gladwell’s argument is that in focusing on the Knight case he distorts—deliberately?—the Court’s analysis. The Knight case occupies about a page of the 63-page majority opinion, and the opinion included it because both sides raised the case in their briefs. The plaintiffs challenging the law argued that Knight’s acquittal showed the statute involved only barred carrying weapons with intent to terrify. New York argued that the law outlawed personal weapons of self-defense generally. The opinion examines medieval English law, colonial statutes, antebellum laws, Reconstruction-era measures and more while concluding that there is little legal history or precedent supporting bans on citizens bearing arms that should control in the U.S.

However, Gladwell’s main botch is that the case deciding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms was D.C. v. Heller, which Bruen relied on. The Knight case isn’t mentioned in Heller at all.

So let’s see: Gladwell…

• Doesn’t understand the function and role of the Supreme Court,
• Thinks judges are trained to apply “common sense” rather than legal analysis and precedent when deciding whether a law should stand,
• Didn’t realize which SCOTUS decision interpreted the Second Amendment the way non-Americans (like him) think it should,
• Didn’t carefully read the opinions he’s criticizing, and
• Misrepresented the Bruen rationale.

Shut up, Malcolm.

And watch some Westerns.