Supreme Court Liberals Acknowledge Futility of Gun Control

posted in: Uncategorised | 2

The unlikely lineup of Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan conclude there’s no rational basis for hassling law-abiding gun owners, who commit very few crimes, just because criminals exist:

But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected [criminal] behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.

 

But not quite.  They were talking about laws regulating abortion, not guns.  And they delved deep in to the factual weeds, considering the rate of complications, the need for access to full-blown hospitals (rather than just abortion clinics) and concluded that the law in question provides “few, if any, health benefits.”

 

So in other words, when the issue is abortion, the Supreme Court thinks it’s necessary for a state legislature to prove that any restriction solves a real problem and provides real benefits–and if it closes down too many abortion clinics, then it’s imposing an “undue burden” and is unconstitutional.  I don’t recall this analysis in the dissent from Heller.

 

You had best believe I will be finding a way to work this reasoning into the (inevitable) appeal briefing in my lawsuit.

 

2 Responses

  1. stoneslinger

    Hillary said the same about a right is not a right if a person has to jump through hoops to access the right. As the SCOTUS, she was talking about abortion and I conclude she would never suggest so much freedom for firearms ownership, which has it’s own Constitutional bulwark.
    I love my country and it’s people, but I have serious doubts of the public’s ability to retain a moral compass of legitimate sanity as our leadership tends to mirror the general citizenry.

    • The whole structure of the Constitution is meant to have leaders who are “elites.” The Electoral College and selection of senators by state legislatures (and historical limitations on voting rights) were meant to select for people who were NOT the “common man.” And indeed, the Framers were uncommonly well-educated and wise. They deserved to be the “elite” of their day. These days, we are ruled by an increasingly unaccountable elite–but they are all dumber than the common man! And think they are smarter than the Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams!

Leave a Reply