If the Supreme Court denies cert in Snope, the Maryland assault weapons ban case, it’s time for the gloves to come fully off. No more “but it’s common for self-defense!” That can be the secondary argument, but the primary argument should be that common bearable arms that are useful in combat are the most protected of all, as all of the historical commentary confirms.
The Second Amendment, as written, includes recognition of the right to resist tyranny and invasion. Dealing with criminals and hunting are ancillary purposes. I want anti-2A judges at every level to face a tsunami of dozens of historical sources confirming that the “arms of modern warfare” are what the 2A protects in particular, and then watch them desperately flail.
They’ll still rule against us, no doubt, but they’ll be even further exposed as the anti-2A ideologues they are. Maybe they can pretend AR-15s and the like aren’t “in common use” for self-defense (they are), but they can’t pretend they aren’t useful in warfare. Hell, that’s why they now claim the 2A doesn’t cover them.
That is an ahistorical absurdity that must be exposed. Hopefully, none of this is necessary because SCOTUS does the right thing and grants cert. We should win even under the watered down “self-defense snd sporting purposes” 2A they have embraced. But if not, it’s time to stop shying away from the real meaning of the Second Amendment.
Konstadinos Moros is an Associate Attorney with Michel & Associates, a law firm in Long Beach that regularly represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in its litigation efforts to restore the Second Amendment in California. You can find him on his Twitter handle @MorosKostas. To donate to CRPA or become a member, visit https://crpa.org/.
This post was adapted by SNW from a tweet posted by Konstadinos Moros.
The “gun community” has a very real problem when it comes to supporting the 2nd amendment.
They believe it was written for hunting or for their 3 gun competition.
Most of them don’t believe the 2A was written, so they could defend themselves, against the surrogates of a tyrannical government. They believe the 2A was written for only defending themselves, against a tyrannical government in a soldier’s uniform.
They don’t believe you should shoot rioters who are destroying private property and trying to kill them. All the while the government ordered the police to stand down and do nothing.
That’s because people within the “gun community” were not raised within the American gun culture. Two completely different worlds…
i am curious if the constitution allows everyone to openly access the arms of modern warfare. grenades? bazooka? i suppose, but seems a bit far fetched.
You need to spend sometime reading about the 2A history. And the history of Arms ownership in this country. Not just the history of gun ownership.
You can own former military aircraft. Fighters. Bombers. Armed water craft. Tanks. Artillery Etc.etc.
It’s called freedom for a reason.
thx. i’ve spent a fair amount of time reading the supreme court cases such as bruen and heller, which contain a fair amount of history. while i get your point i doubt it will fly in court since scalia made up the “dangerous and unusual” standard.