, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On June 24, I posted Bruen: The Constitution Prevails?  The Bruen decision—available here–expanded on Heller and McDonald in affirming–not creating– Americans not otherwise restricted from firearm ownership by law, have an unalienable right in keeping and bearing arms.  Those arms are the arms commonly in use and commonly owned and carried, which circa 2022, means not only semiautomatic pistols—most of the concealed carry market—but modern rifles like the AR-15 family, the most popular modern sporting rifle in America.  Other common and usual arms such as semiautomatic shotguns are likewise guaranteed the law-abiding public.  Government may not demand special conditions for Americans to exercise their right to carry such weapons for self-defense outside the home.  Law-abiding Americans need not beg government bureaucrats to exercise an unalienable right.  Such a “right” is no right at all.  The Supreme Court also, in proclaiming the Second Amendment no longer a second-class right declared no lesser standard than strict scrutiny in deciding Second Amendment issues.

One would think that made the Second Amendment clear, but no.  In that earlier article I wrote:

Final Thoughts:  Obviously, we are not going to see an orderly process of adherence to the law.  The remaining anti-liberty/gun jurisdictions are going to do everything they can to harass the law abiding and to delay compliance with the Constitution, which is no more than they normally do.  Perhaps the only significant variance from the status quo is the Executive Branch is blatantly declaring its intention to violate the Constitution, rather than more quietly just doing it.  NYC and New York State will, at the very least, make concealed carry paperwork and requirements even more expensive and sloth-like.

Congressional D/S/Cs, already laughing at Republican useful idiots for going along with their latest anti-liberty/gun efforts, will redouble their efforts at court packing, illegal gun grabs and federalizing vote fraud.  They have until the mid term elections, and even if they lose both houses, until January of 2023 before lame ducks are sent packing.  Expect them to try to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws by illegal means during that period.

Everything I have predicted has come to pass.  New York and California have passed blatantly unconstitutional bills, and courtesy of The Washington Examiner, Congressional Democrats are hard at work doing the same thing:

House Democrats have introduced a bill banning some semi-automatic firearms in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said.

‘Today I joined @RepCicilline and 150+ of my colleagues to introduce the assault weapons ban. It’s time for Congress to listen to the will of a majority of Americans and pass sensible legislation to get these weapons of war off our streets. #NeverAgain #MSDStrong,’ Deutch tweeted.

The bill prohibits the ‘sale, transfer, production, and importation’ of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Cicilline’s legislation names 205 specific firearms that are prohibited, including the AK-47 and AR-15.

The current House version of this ban is here.  The current Senate version is here.  Even an Iowa Representative is piling on:

Democratic Iowa Rep. Cindy Axne signaled her support for banning all semi-automatic guns at a tele-town hall with her constituents in July, according to audio obtained by the Daily Caller.

‘But the issue isn’t the fact that our schools aren’t safe, the issue is the fact that it’s guns and the problem is we should not have semi-automatic weapons in anything other than warfare,’ Axne said during the tele-town hall on July 6.

‘So here is the deal, they need to go away, and I will continue to push for that and to continue to push for the bills that we tried to get into our Protecting Our Kids Act which was the one we had out of our House side that didn’t make it through in the Senate,’ Axne added.

Pundits assure us even if the bill passes in the House, it can’t possibly pass in the Senate.  I suspect anyone recently paying attention will not be reassured.  It’s certainly possible there are enough Republican useful idiots in the Senate to deprive Americans of fundamental liberties, particularly when doing it before November may be their only chance for quite awhile.  As always, they’re using tragedy to push what they can’t obtain through sober, well-considered and necessary legislation:

Let’s be sure we understand what’s at stake in this bill.  Every magazine fed semiautomatic firearm, rifle, shotgun or pistol, feeds from a detachable magazine.  All are banned.  Every magazine fed weapon of that type is capable of accepting a magazine of greater than 10 rounds.  This is not only a ban on the most common and popular semiautomatic rifles, but all magazine fed semiautos, which is nearly all of the market.  Some .22 rifles feed from under barrel tubes, and under this bill, they might escape a ban. Even the ubiquitous Ruger 10-22, which comes standard with 10-round magazines, accepts larger capacity magazines.  Even that innocuous rifle would be banned.

Notice that all semiautomatic pistols are also banned.  Under such loose language, and it’s purposely loose, all semiautomatic shotguns will be banned, as all could theoretically accept 10 rounds if an under barrel tube magazine were sufficiently long.

Hasn’t the Supreme Court made clear in Heller, McDonald and Bruen these firearms, particularly semiautomatic pistols, are constitutionally protected?  Of course it has.  Then why would Congressmen and Senators, people sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, write such a blatantly unconstitutional bill?

As I’ve so often written, D/S/Cs see the Constitution as either an aid to their schemes, or as an impediment.  When they believe they can hide behind the Constitution’s emanations and penumbras, inventing rights out of thin air, they praise the majesty of the document, but in so doing, they’re praising only their self-imagined cleverness and deceptive corruption.  When the clear language of the Constitution thwarts their designs, they cry foul.

They are, you see gentle readers, the self-imagined elite, intellectually and morally superior, uniquely qualified to rule lesser beings, and lesser beings must be disarmed for their own good.  Because of their innate superiority, their policies and whims are non-falsifiable.  It is not possible for them to be wrong, and no evidence possibly exists which could prove them wrong.

For example, the Clinton Gun Ban, which banned all manner of
“assault weapons,” sunset in 2004 because the government mandated study of its effectiveness found it had no effect on public safety.  It was a failure, but D/S/Cs policies cannot possibly fail, so they want to try it again, but this time they can’t possibly fail, because they’re going to spend any amount of money, create huge bureaucracies, put as many Deplorables in jail as necessary, and in general give it to them gooder and harder than ever before, because only then will their brilliant policies be recognized for their brilliance.

D/S/Cs, in this, and surely in more to come, are demonstrating they have no intention of obeying the supreme law of the land.  Certainly, if they will not obey the Constitution, with which lower law will they abide?  At what will they stop to gain ultimate power?

Adherence to the Constitution is voluntary.  They’re no longer volunteering.

Final Thoughts:

Should the Congress pass such a law, one might take solace in the hope some federal court would enjoin its enforcement, but that’s just a hope.  If not, it would go into force, and does anyone doubt what the current government would do to enforce it?  Perhaps after a few years it might make its way to the Supreme Court, which might strike it down—unless of course the Court is appropriately packed–and then the process of making blatantly unlawful laws would begin again.  American’s God-given rights would forever be locked in a legal process, never having the force of law, while the “law” rolls over those the government disfavors.

No people have ever been disarmed for honorable reasons.  No disarmed people have ever found greater liberty as a result of being disarmed.  Fundamental, unalienable rights, once taken away, are never again restored, because no one would think to take away such rights without the intention of utterly conquering those so deprived of their liberties.

No government that would disarm Americans is, in that unconstitutional, evil act, an American government, nor can it be trusted with power.