Bruen isn't a hurdle for anti-gunners

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Bearing Arms falls under the same ownership as a number of other sites. One of those sites is Townhall. Because of the close relationship, I often look there to find stories we can import over here. There are a lot of smart people who contribute there, after all.

Yet a post about Bruen caught my eye earlier.

The headline, in particular, caught it. Writing for the site, constitutional law attorney Mark W. Smith wrote a piece titled, “The Next Big Hurdle For Gun Controllers” about Bruen.

Gun control lawmakers and activists now face a big problem as they pass dozens of new laws to substantially limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens – this new legislation will almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional.

That’s not my opinion. The Supreme Court made it clear in its recent pro–Second Amendment decision. In language that has drawn shockingly little attention, that ruling shows why many proposed gun restrictions infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Before you can even begin a conversation about whether the proposed laws will have any meaningful effect on mass shootings (they won’t), you need to ask whether the gun restrictions are constitutional. Gun-control advocates don’t want the Constitution to get in the way of their policy objectives—but it’s the truth.

It’s really quite good and I encourage you all to go and read the whole thing. He makes some excellent points, particularly about mass killings and our Founding Fathers’ knowledge of such things.

However, where I have to disagree about whether anti-gun lawmakers in Congress are simply not paying attention to Bruen.

No, they know what it says, they just don’t care.

After all, there was more than enough attention given to the Bruen decision when it came out that I find it almost impossible for the anti-gun side to be ignorant of the long-term consequences of that ruling. And yet, despite that, they continue to push anti-gun policies like the assault weapon ban that’s preoccupied the House of Representatives of late.

They’re not interested in clearing the hurdles so much as pulling a Kool-Aid Man and just bursting through them.

Yet that raises the question of why they would do that if they understand that Bruen will lead to them being struck down.

In that regard, my guess is that they think lower courts will more or less ignore Bruen and invent their own tests or use intermediate scrutiny and that the Supreme Court simply won’t be interested or able to address all of this.

They may be hoping to essentially overwhelm the Court.

Frankly, I’m not sure that’s a winning strategy, since this Court isn’t like those of the past who were apprehensive about taking on Second Amendment cases. Yes, they just kicked a few back to the lower courts, but not until after Bruen gave those lower courts guidance on what they were to use to reach their rulings.

At some point, it’s probable the Supreme Court will rule again, based on their ruling in Bruen.

It’s also possible that they’re pushing ahead because they believe they’ll get the opportunity to pack the Court, thus negating the current status quo and allowing them to overturn Bruen. To do that, though, they’ll have to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which doesn’t seem likely.

Either way, I’m quite sure the Democrats know about that aspect of Bruen, they just don’t care.