Premium

Legal site misses legal arguments on gun control

AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane

High-profile shootings tend to spark calls for gun control. We’ve all seen this happen a thousand times by now, or so it seems.

Something horrific happens and then we’re told we need to peal away our Second Amendment rights or else it’ll happen again.

Never mind that it’ll happen again even if we give up the ground, though. In fact, that’s just evidence we didn’t go far enough.

But a site called Legal Scoops decided to wade into the gun debate a bit on Monday.

Following the Tennessee school shooting in March, members of the Senate Democratic Caucus have expressed their grievances and urged actions to eradicate gun violence.

“This isn’t freedom. Our families don’t deserve this. I am sick of fearing that our loved ones won’t make it home because of gun violence. Gun violence doesn’t care about your age, skin color, income, or zip code,” said Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Raumesh Akbari.

Sen. Akbari added that this issue shouldn’t be partisan, and although prayers are appreciated, they may not produce tangible results. She emphasized the need to take efficient actions to avoid these preventable tragedies from happening again.

On the other hand, President Joe Biden has repeatedly called for gun reforms but conceded that he is powerless without Congress. As Biden confided, “I have gone the full extent of my executive authority to do, on my own, anything about guns.”

“The Congress has to act. The majority of the American people think having assault weapons is bizarre; it’s a crazy idea. They’re against that. And so, I think Congress should be passing the assault weapons ban. I can’t do anything except plead with the Congress to act reasonably,” the president added.

Oddly, do you know what word didn’t show up at Legal Scoops?

“Bruen.”

They’re talking about gun control on a site that focuses on the law and they failed to mention the recent Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of gun control. Maybe it’s me, but that’s kind of a big omission.

The Bruen decision laid the groundwork for what gun control laws can and cannot be considered constitutional. In order for them to survive legal challenge, the laws must be reminiscent of a law passed around the time of the nation’s founding.

For all the talk about people thinking it’s bizarre to own a so-called assault weapon, there’s not really any law restricting a type of firearm category from the time when our nation was first founded. As we also don’t restrict rights based on the fickle desires of the public–there’s a reason they’re protected in the Constitution, after all–then the Bruen decision is kind of an important point in this discussion.

So it’s weird it wasn’t mentioned in a discussion of gun control laws.

It’s almost like there’s a concerted effort to try and minimize the Bruen decision, at least in the minds of the American people, so that they won’t realize they can’t just ban stuff because it makes them feel uneasy.

Since the ruling isn’t what they wanted, they just pretend it doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately for them, millions of law-abiding, gun-owning Americans do remember it. They read it and understood it and know damn good and well that no amount of public opinion polling is going to change anything Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in that decision.

Yes, mass shootings renew calls for gun control, but they don’t negate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That’s something people are just going to have to learn to come to terms with because we’re not rolling over for them or anyone else.