John Garrett From a friend:
How to deal with gun-control advocacy:
The second amendment guarantees an unalienable right to keep and bear arms. It is an individual right under prevailing interpretation of the constitution (Heller v. DC)
Begin enforcing the existing Federal laws that criminalize the conspiracy to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights (18 USC 241…a law passed during the Democratic Truman administration.)
Pass laws that ban government agencies from contracting with companies who seek to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights, using the model that government agencies use to ban support for anti-semitic anti-Israeli activists (the Anti-BDS laws are an ideal template.)
Formally recognize firearms ownership as a protected class, ban hate speech against firearms owners, lawful firearms owners who are victims of crimes should be allowed to pursue hate-crime remedies as well..
This model has worked for the left for decades. We need to give it a go.
~ Tom Frey via Facebook
In upholding Maryland’s ‘assault weapons’ ban, the court employed dubious legal reasoning to trample on American constitutional rights.
Freed up by the Supreme Court’s ongoing reluctance to engage in depth with the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit has taken it upon itself to rewrite Heller en banc. In a 10–4 decision, issued yesterday afternoon, the court upheld Maryland’s ban on both “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” By so doing, it deprived the people of Maryland, the Carolinas, and the Virginias of the core protections to which the Constitution entitles them.
As Judge Traxler’s dissent pointedly establishes, the majority achieved this transformation by contriving “a heretofore unknown ‘test,’ which is whether the firearm in question is ‘most useful in military service.’” In effect, this “test” is designed to permit judges to determine that any weapon they might dislike is unprotected by the Second Amendment and can therefore be prohibited with impunity. Forget that Heller contains its own explicit tests. Forget the “common use” standard. Forget “dangerous and unusual.” There’s a new kid in town, and he’s coming for your rifles.
What counts as “most useful in military service” under this rubric? Well . . . everything, theoretically. “Under the majority’s analysis,” the dissenters contend, “a settler’s musket, the only weapon he would likely own and bring to militia service, would be most useful in military service — undoubtedly a weapon of war — and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.” Indeed, “the ‘most useful in military service’ rubric would remove nearly all firearms from Second Amendment protection as nearly all firearms can be useful in military service.” A standard semi-automatic handgun is plausibly “most useful in military service.” So, too, is a hunting rifle. So is a sword. Perhaps the Fourth Circuit would like to strip the constitutional protection from those weapons, too?
by Charles C.W. Cooke