The Bruen decision will likely go down as one of the most important Second Amendment case in history, if not the most important.
After all, it laid the groundwork for what may end up being the repeal of every problematic gun control law in the entire nation. The “text and history” standard laid down by Justice Clarence Thomas is extremely clear and will likely be used to strike down numerous gun control laws.
And yet, we still have people who don’t seem to understand that. In fact, their understanding is so limited that they’re still calling for bans on modern sporting rifles.
America is once again demanding action on guns and their availability to those murdering our children, families, loved ones and neighbors. It appears that no loss of life is great enough to overcome the money flowing to politicians who have exchanged their oaths of office for campaign contributions.
It is a sad day when we see the funerals before us of those who have been murdered by assault weapons; hear the demand of Americans for change and watch legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate argue about raising the age to 21 for the purchase of such weapons and limiting the kinds of ammunition magazines that can be sold rather than banning the total sale of assault weapons which were designed for wartime combat and not used in a civil society. We hear media praise for extended background checks and waiting periods with additional criteria, but the weapons are still available.
The answer does not rest with arming more people in our schools, churches and public places. The argument about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not extend to home arsenals with guns available to our kids. It is hypocrisy to hold a bartender accountable for selling drinks to a drunk person while allowing a gun dealer and anyone who sells a gun to do so with no accountability.
Of course, there’s a lot of difference between a bartender who can clearly see the patron is drunk and a gun dealer who has absolutely no way of knowing if their customer is homicidal or not.
However, it’s also clear that the author here favors an assault weapon ban as well as many other restrictions. After all, look at his comment about “home arsenals.”
Yet it’s clear that he’s really not familiar with the Bruen decision and its “text and history” standard for gun control.
After all, I challenge anyone to defend an assault weapon ban on those grounds. I challenge them to find anything from around the time of the founding that will justify banning an entire category of firearm for any reason at all.
I don’t think it’s possible.
And yet, we still have people trying to push for that particular bit of legislation. They want to take away our AR-15s and AK-47s because it makes them uncomfortable and despite the Bruen ruling, all because most of them don’t really get it.
You can’t restrict people’s rights because you don’t approve of them exercising them. You can’t take away our right to have guns you don’t approve of simply because you don’t approve of them. That’s not how anything works and Bruen made it very clear that such a law will not survive a judicial challenge.
That won’t stop some people from screaming, though. They don’t care about people’s rights.
It’s funny to me how often these same people will screech about their right to free speech or their freedom from religion while trying to infringe on your rights. It really tells you all you need to know about them.
Luckily, we have the Bruen decision that will shield the right to keep and bear arms for quite some time.