The Democrats are trying to find ways around the NYSRPA v. Bruen ("Bruen") ruling because we keep hitting them over the head with it on all their gun bills.
In committee, speaking on a bill that bans open carry of many semi-automatic firearms in public, Delegate Simon claimed to have found a law in Virginia just before the War for Independence that said people couldn't carry guns "to the terror of the People" at fairs, markets, etc. Simon said therefore banning the open carry of such guns was constitutional under Bruen.
Nice try, but that assertion fails in two ways. "To the terror of the People" involved carrying dangerous AND unusual weapons that would frighten people. While semi-automatic firearms are dangerous, as are all firearms, they are NOT unusual. AR-15s are the most popular rifle in America.
Secondly, the assertion that because Virginia had such a law is not good enough. Bruen requires that to be constitutional, something be a tradition or common practice throughout most of the United States from the founding up to the adoption of the 14th Amendment in the mid-1800s. The Court specifically said laws that are outliers, i.e. being in a few localities, don't count as being constitutional.
-
On the Floor in the Senate, Senator Deeds tried to imply that because the U.S. Supreme Court didn't intervene with a stay in two cases working their way through the lower courts where an "assault weapon" ban has been upheld, that implies the Supreme Court believes those bans are constitutional.
Hogwash! The Supreme Court does not like to intervene in matters working their way through the lower courts. The Justices prefer to let the lower courts do their job first and then look at cases appealed to the Supreme Court.
Senator Surovell went into a long soliloquy about the 1st Amendment and other amendments where a right is restricted. The problem with his logic is that each thing he listed as restricted is something actually harming another human being – like slander, liable, child neglect, or yelling "fire" to purposely cause panic. You and me carrying a gun for self-defense, wherever we are, is NOT hurting anyone. If we do hurt an innocent, then there are legitimate laws that will take care of us.
Surovell even said that there is not a single right that is an absolute right! Uh, Senator, so you are saying that slavery (13th Amendment) is OK under some conditions? What would those be? Or that women can be denied the vote (19th Amendment) under certain conditions? Please elaborate how those rights are not absolute.
But that is how the gun-control side tries to justify gun control – using false analogies and flat out wrong or misleading statements.
Posts
