The Supreme Court spent a long time ignoring the Second Amendment. While there were countless cases dealing with almost every other aspect of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was one that didn't get much attention. The Third Amendment didn't either, but we all can see why that was the case.
That doesn't hold for guns, though, and when we finally got decisions from the high court, they were good. They just aren't enough.
See, the problem isn't that the Supreme Court ruled against gun rights as a thing. Quite the contrary, actually, though it did leave the door open for gun control to some degree.
And, with anti-gunners, if you leave them an inch, they take a mile, all while ignoring the previous court rulings.
But despite all of this, activist anti-gun governments throughout the nation have worked overtime to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights, unflinchingly ramming through slates of gun control laws that brazenly disregard the Supreme Court’s authority. In the decades since Heller, multiple states, including Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Connecticut, California, and now Virginia – have outlawed entire types, brands, and classes of firearms and components. State legislatures have turned law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners into felons overnight via legislation, ignoring the Constitution and blatantly defying the Supreme Court.
At the crux of all of these laws – particularly those banning certain guns and components – is the issue of “common use.” Remember, one of the key parts of the Heller ruling concerns what types of firearms are protected under the Second Amendment – specifically, those which are “in common use” and which are not both “dangerous” and “unusual.”
Also, recall that the ruling struck down D.C.’s handgun ban because handguns are not only “in common use,” but also are not “dangerous” and “unusual.”
With that in mind, if the legal test set in Heller is that protected arms are those “in common use,” then why can any of these states legally restrict the sale, transfer, ownership, or use of any of these firearms? Well, if we are to follow what the Court has ruled, the plain answer is: they can’t.
The problem with Heller is that the phrase "in common use" is apparently too vague for many people. Personally, I disagree with that as the standard at all, in part because it opens the door for banning new weapons technology before it can become "in common use." Our Founding Fathers didn't say crap about you could only have guns similar to what a bunch of other people have, either.
While AR-15s are the most popular model of rifle in the United States today, the fact that we're not using them a billion times a year to shoot home invaders is interpreted by some as them not being commonly used for self-defense, thus not commonly used at all.
Yes, it's a twisting of reality, but it's what a lot of anti-gunners like to do as a hobby, apparently.
But more to the point, the issue here is that Supreme Court decisions, in and of themselves, don't do all that much. All governments have to have some form of legitimacy. The people to be governed have to be willing to be governed. Legitimacy can come from mutual agreement that we'll band together and pick leaders, or it can come from the barrel of a gun.
With SCOTUS, the only thing that really makes people follow their decisions is the mutual consent thing, coupled with government agencies that will work to try and enforce it.
For decades, states have stomped all over decisions like Heller, ignoring the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, even regarding the whole "in common use" thing, all because it's both convenient for them and there's literally no one stopping them from doing so. The lower courts, particularly in anti-gun regions, sign on and add legitimacy to what can and should be a straightforward case.
It's why we cannot just trust the courts to protect our rights. It's why we need to do more. It's why we have to fight every single bill that comes through. It's why we can give zero ground for anything, because once they figure they've got us on the ropes, they'll go in for the kill, and we all know it.
We cannot hope that the courts alone will protect us.
We need to protect the Second Amendment ourselves.
