The gun control group Giffords is one of many that has never met a piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation they didn’t like. While they claim to value the Second Amendment, we’ve seen no signs of it before.
In the wake of the Bruen decision, they were also one of many anti-gun groups that told us just how awful the decision was, how it would lead to countless deaths, the typical “the streets will run red with blood” stuff we’ve come to expect.
But now, Giffords seems to think differently. In fact, they’re saying that Bruen really was an anti-gun decision.
One year ago, the Supreme Court issued its decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the most important Second Amendment case the Court has decided in more than a decade. The Court’s decision has led to an unprecedented number of challenges to firearms laws across the United States and has raised questions about what measures federal, state, and local governments can use to address the epidemic of gun violence in America.
Bruen has caused a great deal of confusion and disruption as lower federal courts struggled to follow the new methodology it mandated. But, our analysis shows that even after Bruen, courts are upholding state, federal, and local gun laws against Second Amendment challenges. Most courts have recognized that, when properly applied, Bruen allows for a wide range of gun violence prevention laws.
At the same time, a small number of ideologically-driven judges have weaponized Bruen to strike down long-standing gun laws. The Supreme Court needs to step in to correct these outlier decisions and make clear that Bruen does not prevent legislators from exercising their traditional powers to enact commonsense gun laws that will save lives.
It’s long and I lost brain cells reading this, but the short version is that Bruen is properly applied when judges uphold gun control but isn’t when it strikes down gun control.
This is weird when you think about it, in part because they were so furious when the decision was handed down. If it was such an anti-gun decision, why was Giffords among the groups so upset?
It just boggles the mind.
You see, Giffords, like most gun control groups, says they support the Second Amendment, yet we’ve never seen them once say a piece of gun control goes too far. In this case, though, they’re taking a decision that essentially guts all constitutionality arguments for the vast majority of gun control laws and the only times they say it’s been used correctly happen to be when it conforms to their pre-existing beliefs.
Meanwhile, they hope we’ll just forget that the group’s founder literally said “no more guns” to a Time reporter.
Look, I won’t say Bruen doesn’t allow for gun control at all despite my fondest wishes. It most certainly does and does so expressly.
But a reading of the Bruen decisions makes it pretty clear what is and isn’t permissible in most cases. Sure, there are likely to be debates and gray area, but Giffords makes it seems like there’s nothing really off-limits when it comes to gun control, and that’s simply not the case.
“Justices are lawyers, not historians!” it’s been argued.
That is true, but briefs are compiled by lawyers who have the time and money to reach out to historians and get the assistance needed. The judges and justices then can then evaluate that, rather than understanding history like a professor.
At the end of the day, Bruen isn’t what Giffords wants. They just want people to think that people who actually read the decision got it wrong.