I get that a lot of people don't really grasp a lot of things about guns. On most topics, people have a surface-level understanding at best. For example, I don't have strong opinions on rocket propellant because I simply don't know enough about it. I know it's a thing and there are different types, but not a ton beyond that.
Guns are sort of the same way. The difference is, some people think they understand guns when they don't.
In this case, we have an attorney who runs a site called Above the Law. In theory, it's about the law. That means there is going to be an intersection of the law and politics since politics creates laws. So far, no issue.
The problem is that the individual in question is a little unhinged on the topic of guns, which he clearly doesn't understand that way.
It’s not surprising that a Trump judge would strike down a gun regulation. Republican judges do that all the time. Between Heller and Bruen, there’s now a collection of boilerplate, ahistorical gibberish that judges can cite so they can hem and haw about the “grave seriousness” of the threat but then strike down the law as overbroad anyway, no matter how narrowly tailored it might be. You might think it should be illegal to have that, but the original public meaning says the Founding Fathers EXPECTED your neighbor to own a rocket-propelled grenade launcher! It’s dumb, but it’s all part of the game.
Except that our Founding Fathers actually did expect us to own things like that.
In their time, anyone with enough money could buy artillery. It was common to outfit private ships with cannons and it wasn't restricted to just those with seagoing vessels. Anyone could buy a cannon. A small child, if they had the money, could buy one.
Our Founding Fathers actually did expect us to own things akin to RPGs because they wanted us to be able to not just defend the nation from foreign invasion--and the creation of a standing army didn't negate this desire, either, as is clear from the fact that they didn't immediately restrict cannon ownership--but from a tyrannical government seeking to oppress the American people.
That's the game.
Judge Stephen McGlynn does not understand that game:
Why are there small lifeboats on gigantic steel ocean liners? Why do we spend thousands equipping our vehicles with airbags? Why do we wear seatbelts and place our infants in safety seats? Why do we build storm shelters under our homes? Why do we install ground-fault interrupter outlets by sinks and bathtubs? Why do we get painful inoculations? Why do we voluntarily undergo sickening chemotherapy?
And why do we protect ourselves with firearms?
This is how he began a 168-page opinion. He sat down and thought, “I’m going to come up with some brilliant analogies!” and then decided to OPEN the opinion with this. Which, in some ways, you’ve got to appreciate because 168 pages is a lot and it’s nice that he broadcast that this wouldn’t amount to a work of serious legal thought right off the top.
Why are there small lifeboats in gigantic steel ocean liners? Because sometimes they sink. But — and I can’t stress this part enough — when the cruise ship isn’t sinking, no one uses lifeboats to assassinate kindergartners. Child safety seats and airbags have tragically cost children’s lives in the past and we’ve reworked how we use them because of it. But those were still instances of the safety device not working properly and not people using airbags as a weapon of destruction.
Now, I'm not going to pretend no one kills kindergartners with so-called assault weapons. It's a terrible thing, to be sure, but a lot of people do save their lives with guns. Pretending otherwise is insane.
The analogies might not be perfect, but it doesn't negate the lifesaving that guns are a part of.
Plus, there's always the fact that the Founding Fathers also didn't trust the government to always act in our best interests. In such a case, we'd need guns like these to save our lives from that oppressive government.
“And why do we protect ourselves with firearms?” First of all, the meaning of “protect ourselves” is stretched to the breaking point here. The law at issue, The Protect Illinois Communities Act, banned new sales of AR-15s and required existing owners to register their rifle with the state police. Cue the eerie music and imagine walking home from your office one night, hearing a strange noise behind you, and reaching into your computer bag to pull out your self-defense… military-grade longarm rifle? There’s a reasonable policy argument that the fixation on AR-15s is misplaced because handguns do far more death and destruction on a day-by-day scale, but at least with a handgun there’s a non-ludicrous self-defense hypothetical.
Oh, wow, his completely arbitrary scenario just happened to be one where an AR-15 wasn't a fantastic choice, which completely negates everyone who has ever said they were valid for self-defense.
Let's ignore the other scenarios where people defend their homes with such weapons. That's not even a hypothetical. It's happened. It's happened a number of times, too.
Each of those restrictions also invalidates the ability of people to use these weapons against a tyrannical government, which is a reason. I'm sure he'd counter with the old "you can't use AR-15s against fighter jets," but let's remember the Taliban didn't have an air force, either. A power can be resisted indefinitely with small arms so long as the opposition is willing to fight.
Plus, let's understand that through it all, he's missed the legal points. The Bruen decision said you couldn't do this. The Rahimi decision said you couldn't do this. You need to find an analog and Illinois didn't have one.
So while the analogies might have been less than perfect, none of what is presented here is a valid argument for gun control. It's the emotional outburst of someone whose profession alone suggests they're old enough to not have these.
Somehow, I suspect there's a meltdown video of this guy from the day after the election.
