Mediaboss Marketing

Judge Benitez: Miller v. Becerra, AR15 Rifles ARE Protected by Second Amendment!

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On June 4th, 2021, in the Southern District of California, Judge Roger T. Benitez found the complex regulatory scheme of California gun laws that outlaw the ownership of Assault weapons, particularly semi-automatic clones of the AR-15, are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment on their face.

From the decision:

Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs challenge a net of interlocking statutes which impose strict criminal restrictions on firearms that fall under Californias complex definition of the ignominiousassault weapon. Hearings on a preliminary injunction were consolidated with a trial on the merits pursuant to F.R. C.P. Rule 65(a)(2). Having considered the evidence, the Court issues these findings of fact and conclusions of law,1 finds for the Plaintiffs, and enters Judgment accordingly.

This is the opening salvo in a tightly worded and beautifully constructed 94 page decision by Judge Roger T. Benitez. This correspondent will lead the reader through a modest sampling of the decision, so those who do not wish to read the entire decision will not need to do so. Reading the entire decision is highly recommended.

Judge Benitez demolishes the argument that AR-15 style rifles are unusual on page 2:

This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned assault weapons are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed assault weapons are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.

He shows how silly it is to ban a rifle for features that make it more accurate on page 8:

The mechanical design features that identify a rifle as a California assault weapon, it is argued, tend to help a person shoot the rifle more accurately under pressure. The Plaintiffs make the point that this is a better condition for all lawful uses, i.e., a more accurate gun is better for everyone. After all, responsible gun-owners worry about the ending point of every round fired. If shooting in self-defense, a home defender wants every round to hit only attackers.

In contrast, the Attorney General argues that better accuracy makes it a more dangerous weapon.

The Judge cites the Caetano decision, where the Supreme Court unanimously held the Second Amendment protects modern weapons on page 10L

The Second Amendment protects modern weapons. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 412 (2016). The firearms banned by California Penal Code 30515 and deemed assault weapons are modern weapons. They are principally AR-15 type rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Plaintiffs and others refer to them as modern sporting rifles although they are clearly useful for more than just sport.

He shows the clear inclusion and protection of militia weapons by the Second Amendment on page 11:

Although the Attorney General sees it differently, the Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes a right to keep and bear firearms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Miller, 307 U.S., at 178. Miller implies that a weapon that is commonly owned and that is useful for the common defense for a militia member is also protected by the Second Amendment.

Judge Benitez shows how common modern rifles are in the United States on page 15:

Nationally, modern rifles are ubiquitous. In 2018 alone (the most recent year with data), 1,954,000 modern rifles were manufactured or imported into the United States. Over the last three decades, 19,797,000 modern rifles have been manufactured or imported into the United States and the numbers have been steadily increasing.

He shows the California assault weapon ban was flawed from the start on pages 24-25.

Moving through the trial record here, it becomes clear that AWCAs assault weapons ban-by-prohibited-features was not designed to address a real harm, and even if it did, does not alleviate the harm in a material way. Guiding the intermediate scrutiny path are some checkpoints.

On page 26, he shows it is the government which bears the burden of proof when it attempts to limit a fundamental Constitutional right:

The presumption in favor of rightfully possessing a citizens arm was made during the adoption of the Second Amendment. The government may carry its burden in a myriad of yet undefined ways, but it is the governments burden to bear.

On page 28, he shows the idea that some weapons can be banned because others are allowed, is a flawed and silly argument with no stopping point:

The problem is that the alternatives-remain argument has no limiting principle and would justify incremental firearm bans until there is only a single-shot derringer remaining for lawful self-defense. The same argument that a handgun ban might be justified because government-approved alternatives are available was rejected in Heller and it is rejected here.

Judge Benitez unequivocally shows AR-15 rifles are used for defense on page 34:

Without question, there is clear evidence that AR-15 rifles are and have been used for self-defense.

He shows the state contradicts itself in its claims about accurate fire on page 39:

Accuracy is very important for self-defense because a civilian is accountable for every round he fires. If he misses the attacker, he will hit something he did not intend to hit, which may be an innocent bystander.61 The State does not dispute the importance of accuracy alone for self-defense.62

Does the state want rifles that are less accurate? No and yes . The State wants rifles that are less accurate during rapid firing because rapid firing, it is claimed, correlates with criminal use. And there is no need for rapid firing for self-defense, according to the Attorney General.

On page 44, Judge Benitez explains the state cannot restrict a right merely because some arms are used more commonly in some crimes:

In other words, if modern rifles are misused in crime(even disproportionately), government must deal with those wrongful acts directly; it may not deal with the problem by suppressing the rights of law-abiding citizens to have modern rifles for lawful uses. Thus, disproportionality is not a valid constitutional concern. Common ownership by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes is the test. Moreover, there is little evidence that modern rifles are used disproportionately in crime.

Then, in a series of arguments starting on page 47, he shows how the claim that AR-15 rifles are more commonly used in a crime is not correct:

Koper concludes, while some surveys suggest that ownership and, to a lesser extent, use of AWs may be fairly common among certain subsets of offenders, the overwhelming weight of evidence from gun recovery and survey studies indicates that AWs are used in a small percentage of gun crimes overall.76 Kopers conclusions comport with the ATF firearm tracing report from 2019.

Recall that to pass intermediate scrutiny, AWCA must have at least been designed to address a real harm and alleviate the harm in a material way.Turner II, 520 U.S., at 195. The evidence described so far proves that the harm of an assault rifle being used in a mass shooting is an infinitesimally rare event. More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California. Even if a mass shooting by assault rifle is a real harm, the evidence also shows that AWCAs prohibited features ban has not alleviated the harm in any material way.

On page 53, Judge Benitez shows how useful a modern rifle is, merely by its presence:

On the other side, a fully loaded modern rifle is surely a powerful psychological criminal deterrent. Simply brandishing such a weapon may cause an intruder to flee precisely because it appears to be dangerous and fully loaded. It is difficult to imagine the same psychological effect on a home invader (or two invaders) from brandishing a 2-shot derringer.

On page 59, the Judge shows how other firearms were used in the vast majority of the crimes the state claims would be reduced by banning AWs.

Analyzing the list of 161 national events, Allen finds that 78% of mass shooting events did not involve an assault weapon. Put differently, across the U.S. only 22% did involve an assault weapon.115 Her opinion comports with other evidence in the record. Professor Mark Gius reports even less frequent use of assault rifles in mass shooting events.116 Gius says, [c]ontrary to popular belief, however, assault rifles were not the predominant type of weapon used in these types of crimes. In fact, according to a recent study, handguns were the most used type of firearm in mass shootings (32.99% of mass shootings); rifles were used in only 8.25% of mass shootings.117

On page 60, he shows how the ban in California is a failure:

From Allens list of mass shooting events, it is reported that in California there have been 25 mass shooting events over approximately 40 years.118 How well has the California ban on assault weapons worked? Before AWCA, twice in a decade, an assault weapon was used in a mass shooting. On average, since AWCA, twice a decade, an assault weapon was used in a mass shooting.119 The assault weapon ban has had no effect. Californias experiment is a failure.

On page 64, he notes that AR-15 type rifles are lower-powered than many common rifles:

A modern rifle like the AR-15 platform rifle typically uses lower power cartridges than either military rifles or hunting rifles.

On page 69 the judge states what has become obvious from the research:

Put simply, the evidence indicates gun bans are in effective at reducing gun crimes.

Then Judge Benitez starts taking apart the wrong decisions in other circuits which have been hostile to the Second Amendment, on page 70:

In the past, Second Amendment cases were wrongly decided by following a majority of circuit courts down the wrong path.

He shows how the California government has infringed on Second Amendment rights on page 75:

Today, the Attorney General goes beyond N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol and suggests that intermediate scrutiny should permit a class-wide ban on extremely popular assault rifles, assault shotguns, and assault handguns, in addition to an existing ban on buying any handgun not found on a shrinking list under Californias handgun roster of safe handguns, because some alternatives remain. This is too far.

On page 77, he explains how the other circuit decisions do not apply because they were deficient in various ways:

None of the out-of-circuit decisions comfortably fit this case. None of the cases went to trial. None of the cases had substantial evidence that AR-15 type rifles are useful and used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like home-defense and sporting competition. None of the cases considered an AR-15s militia use. None of the cases scrutinized a statute like Californias 30515 that bans assault rifles, assault shotguns, and assault pistols, while at the same time prohibiting the sale of all potentially alternative handguns not included on the States shrinking handgun roster.

He shows there is no logic to the AW ban. It has to have a real purpose to restrict Second Amendment rights, yet the ban does not make sense, on page 80:

The point is that most of what the Attorney General says are dangerous features on a prohibited modern rifle are also features on a Second Amendment-protected semiautomatic pistol. The Ruger Mini 14 is not banned by AWCA but it is capable of shooting the same ammunition, at the same speed, with the same type of large capacity magazines, as an AR-15.

On pages 80-81, he puts forward the reasons the AR-15 type rifle is protected as a militia weapon:

Banning the Ideal Arm for Militia Use Fails Intermediate Scrutiny

The Attorney General does not address or acknowledge whether the ban also imposes a burden on the Second Amendment right to own a firearm that is the ideal weapon for use in the militia. If the modern rifle is the ideal weapon, which it is according to the testimony of General Youngman, then the ban forces a choice of a less-than-ideal weapon for militia use.

On page 84-85, the expert testimony for the militia argument is explained:

Youngmans testimony is uncontroverted. Youngman is very well qualified to opine on the usefulness of an AR-15 for militia use. He has served in the regular army and the army reserves. He served as Kentuckys Adjutant General commanding the states national guard. He is a firearms trainer and armorer. He was a member of the bar and worked as a prosecutor. His opinion that an AR-15 is an ideal firearm for use in a militia is unequivocal and uncontested. Of the prohibited features in 30515(a), most are important for militia use.

On page 85, the protection of militia weapons is directly tied to Supreme Court precedent in the Miller case from 1939:

But Miller held that it is precisely this type of firearm a firearm that has a reasonable relationship to militia service that is protected by the Second Amendment. It is a principle that Heller grasped. This holding [of Miller] is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia).

On page 87, he categorically declares the AR-15 in particular, and militia weapons in general, are protected by the Second Amendment:

The evidence is clear, however, that the AR-15 type of modern rifle bears a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency, as well as the effectiveness, of a modern well-regulated militia. It is therefore categorically protected by the Second Amendment.

On page 92, Judge Rodger T. Benitez sums up the rationale for the Second Amendment as valid today as it was in 1791. It is beautifully done:

There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are better. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes. In early America and today, the Second Amendment right of self-preservation permits a citizen to repel force by force when the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent that injury. Heller, 554 U.S., at 594. Then, as now, the Second Amendment may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. Id. at 606 (citation omitted).

This is a remarkable and long-awaited Second Amendment decision. It will now be appealed to a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.

It is impossible to know how they will respond.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

More here:
Judge Benitez: AR15 Rifles ARE Protected by Second Amendment! - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Bryan Oberc, in Munster, Ind., tries out an AR-15 from Sig Sauer in the exhibition hall at the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting in Indianapolis in 2019. Michael Conroy/AP hide caption

Bryan Oberc, in Munster, Ind., tries out an AR-15 from Sig Sauer in the exhibition hall at the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting in Indianapolis in 2019.

For more than three decades, California has banned certain types of semiautomatic rifles including the AR-15 under an "assault weapons" ban. On Friday, a federal judge threw out the ban, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is about America's freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland," Judge Roger Benitez wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. "California's assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the decision "a direct threat to public safety," and state Attorney General Rob Bonta has said the state would appeal.

Courts differ on whether assault weapons bans are constitutional. That's because the Supreme Court has never actually heard a case testing their constitutionality.

The main guidance for lower courts comes from District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark 2008 decision permitting private citizens to keep handguns in the home. The Heller test is straightforward: Is the firearm commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?

"If the lower courts were following Heller directly ... that would be the end of the case," said David Kopel, a constitutional law professor at Denver University Sturm College of Law, and adjunct scholar at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

But some courts, including federal courts in California, use a multi-step test that requires "policy-balancing," Kopel told NPR. That's why Benitez's 94-page opinion so exhaustively examines the pros and cons of an assault weapons ban.

Among similar cases that have been heard across the country, Benitez's opinion is "by far the most thorough in its careful examination of the evidence," Kopel said.

"This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection," Judge Benitez wrote. The firearms that the California legislature had deemed "assault weapons" are actually "ordinary, popular, modern rifles," he said.

The judge was trying to demonstrate how ordinary the AR-15 is because when a weapon is in common use, it's protected by the Second Amendment, said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston who is also an adjunct scholar at Cato.

"I think the case for protecting the AR-15 is greater than the case for protecting the handgun," Blackman said. "The Second Amendment has a couple touchstones: One is self-defense. The other one is protection from the government itself. This is the weapon."

Michael Morley, a professor of law at Florida State University College of Law and contributor to The Federalist Society, said that the court "engaged with the record evidence, statistics, and factual underpinning of expert witnesses' conclusions at a highly granular level of detail."

But, Morley told NPR, "the opinion contains some rhetorical flourishes and argumentative portions that I don't believe strike the right tone for a judicial issuance."

One such rhetorical flourish came at the start of Benitez's opinion. The judge compared the AR-15 to a "Swiss Army Knife," calling it "a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense weapon." Benitez, appointed to the bench in 2003 by President George W. Bush, repeatedly criticized the state's ban as a "failed experiment" that "has had no effect" on mass shootings in the 30 years it was enacted.

The opinion reads like it's written "by an AR-15 salesman rather than a constitutional analyst," said Larry Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. "The bias fairly drips from the opinion, and the analysis certainly does not follow from the Supreme Court's jurisprudence about the Second Amendment."

This isn't the first time Judge Benitez has weighed in on controversial gun laws. In 2019, he struck down a state law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. "Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," Benitez wrote at the time.

It's very likely that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will ultimately reverse Benitez's ruling, said Kopel, because "no pro-Second Amendment has ever survived in the Ninth Circuit."

After that, legal observers say, it's possible the Supreme Court will step in to settle the matter. But that's far from certain. In 2016, the high court declined to hear a challenge to assault weapons bans in Connecticut and New York. The year before, the court rejected a similar challenge over local ordinances in Cook County, Ill.

Read more from the original source:
'Ordinary, Popular' Guns Protected By Second Amendment, California Judge Rules - NPR

The Supreme Courts decision to hear a case pertaining to New Yorks strict limits on carrying guns outside the home provides conservative justices the opportunity to apply one of their pet theories: originalism. If they are intellectually honest about doing so, the restrictions will stand.

One of conservatives favorite tropes over the past several decades is a defense of the original intent of the founders. Conservatives have deployed this judicial doctrine against what they decry as judicial activism, rulings on the part of judges that, conservatives insist, abrogate the separation of powers mandated by the founders in the Constitution. Curiously, however, these same conservatives have yet to apply originalism to the Second Amendment.

The proper approach to the Constitution, these originalists argue, is to discern what the founders intended rather than treat the Constitution as a living document that articulates fixed principles that must be adapted to changing historical and cultural circumstances.

As the late Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice most identified with originalism, said in 2012, The Constitution is a static being. A decade earlier, Scalia had declared, The Constitution I apply is not living but dead, or as I put it, enduring.

Originalists, for instance, insisted that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should not be applied to sexual orientation and the right to marry. Because the amendment was drafted to protect freed slaves, the argument goes, it has no applicability to same-sex marriage.

For Scalia and other originalists, determining original intent requires immersing oneself in the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time somehow placing out of mind knowledge that we have which an earlier age did not, and putting on beliefs, attitudes, philosophies, prejudices and loyalties that are not those of our day.

Some conservatives have taken originalism to ridiculous extremes. Years ago, while touring the South with students from the Columbia School of Journalism, I sat in shocked disbelief as Roy S. Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (and, more recently, defeated Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate) informed us that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment applied only to Christianity because the founders did not know any religion besides Christianity.

That assertion, of course, is demonstrably false the founders were well aware of Jews and Muslims as well as other religions but it illustrates conservatives almost slavish allegiance to originalism.

Lets return to Scalias comments about immersing oneself in the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time and shift our attention from the First Amendment to the Second Amendment, which reads, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Surely, any self-respecting originalist, someone sincerely trying to understand the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time, would not ignore the full text of the amendment.

Although the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates routinely quote the second half of the amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, a more honest reading would include the initial clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. ...

Indeed, historians have demonstrated that the founders were eager to ensure that militias were properly armed against the British. Very likely, therefore, the founders intended to secure the right to bear arms for members of militias.

(Whenever I see a gun enthusiast swaggering with a firearm, Im tempted to ask very politely, of course, and in a conversational tone the name and location of his militia. Tempted, as I say, but Ive found that discretion is the greater part of valor when dealing with someone heavily armed.)

Even if we set aside the militia argument, an originalist approach to the Second Amendment one concerned about the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time would surely strain to justify a constitutional right to brandish the modern weapons used to create the carnage we have seen again and again.

Did the founders really intend to ensure civilian access to the AR-15 essentially the semi-automatic version of the militarys M16 automatic rifle that a mentally unbalanced teenager used to kill 17 in Parkland, Fla.? Or the semi-automatic weapons used in Boulder, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernardino, Pittsburgh or Midland/Odessa? (Im sure I missed a few in that accounting.)

A true originalist might reasonably argue for the constitutional right to wield a musket, but modern weapons of war with their power, range and capacity would surely go beyond the bounds of original intent.

The founders had no knowledge of such weapons.

Instead, the National Rifle Association has announced yet another advertising campaign, this one for $2 million, to ensure constitutional rights and thwart any attempt at sensible gun safety, and lawmakers in Texas recently voted to allow anyone to carry weapons without a license.

After still more horrific shootings Indianapolis, San Jose, Miami Beach we hear once again that conservatives thoughts and prayers are with the victims families.

Rather than accept another round of empty pieties, we should demand that they, along with Scalias acolytes on the Supreme Court, embrace their own rhetoric and apply the doctrine of original intent to the Second Amendment, thereby clearing the way for sensible measures on gun safety.

Randall Balmer, a professor at Dartmouth College, is the author of Solemn Reverence: The Separation of Church and State in American Life.

Read the original post:
Column: 'Originalism' and the Second Amendment - Valley News

I am writing to applaud Richard Edlunds understanding of the Second Amendment to our constitution in the editorial titled Article offers insight into gun laws. His conclusion is that the gun lobbys interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people.

A simple reading of the entire Second Amendment clearly communicates that the purpose of the amendment is to assure that militias have arms available to allow those militias to perform their intended purposes.

A historical understanding of the times the amendment was written reveals its purpose.

1. Militias were the standard method of providing defenses for communities, states and the entire country.

2. Militias relied on members to supply their own arms. No private arms; no defense.

3. The Founders, for many reasons, were suspicious of and wanted to avoid chancing the potential dangers they envisioned in standing armies.

4. The survival of communities, states and the entire country was dependent on individual well-regulated militia members supplying their own arms.

5. The founding population did use these same arms for self-defense since they had no other alternative.

Today's conditions are quite different from the conditions of our founding.

1. We have the strongest military in the world to protect our country.

2. We have National Guard units to both support our federal military and protect the states.

3. We have police, sheriff personnel and highway patrol units to protect our local citizenry.

4. None of the units mentioned above require individuals to supply their own arms.

5. Individuals can rely on all of the forgoing for their personal safety.

Times have changed from our founding. The arms referred to in the Second Amendment are no longer needed to support our various organizations that are designed to provide our current defensive needs. Elimination of the second amendment is unnecessary. Simply read the entire amendment, understand its initial intent and use it to help assure that our federal government does nothing to weaken or eliminate the various organizations that have replaced our well regulated Militias of the past.

The development of this country was violent and guns, both personal and governmental, were a large part of what is now viewed as past progress. One only has to compare the mayhem committed by individuals with guns in our country with other modern countries to realize that we are doing something wrong when it comes to managing these dangerous implements for public safety.

Guns, in my opinion, should be considered what they are. Very dangerous if misused. Other dangerous items such as vehicles, dangerous medications and other things that can become a public menace if improperly used are regulated by law.

It is well past time where this country, for its own protection, needs to regulate firearms in a responsible way for the public's protection and stop reading only the Second Amendments last two phrases and include the first two phrases to provide understanding of the intent. Reading relevant history can also be useful.

Ronald L. Feller

Aiken

See the rest here:
Letter: Guns should be well-regulated | Letters to the Editor | postandcourier.com - Charleston Post Courier

After spending decades assailing the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, cultural Marxists believe theyve finally found the perfect line of attack against the constitutional right to keep and bear arms: racism.

Just like every other aspect of the American Founding, the ratification of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is rooted in nothing more than white supremacy. Or at least, thats what scholar Carol Anderson wants you to believe.

In her latest book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, Anderson argues that the well regulated Militia inscribed in the Second Amendment was created to provide states with a mechanism to quell potential slave uprisings.

It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising, she told NPR. And James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts.

Anderson claimed the Second Amendment provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings.

While Anderson argues that her book isnt anti-gun, her statements made to CNN say otherwise. When asked about the recent announcement that the Supreme Court would pick up a gun rights case, Anderson pivoted to gun control, asserting that opposition to such measures is likely based on white Americans fear of black Americans.

After Sandy Hook, nothing happened, she said. How could that be? That could be because of this underlying fear that if there are real gun safety laws then whites will be left defenseless against these black people.

Anderson also stated her belief that recent efforts in Texas to pass constitutional carry legislation are a result of the growing diversity of Texas and predicts that the state will become a slaughterhouse if the bill becomes law. The law has already passed the Texas legislature and is headed to the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott, who has already pledged to sign it.

Not only are Andersons historical claims entirely inaccurate, but the publication of her book represents the larger, continued effort by American leftists to degrade and distort the American founding. The entire premise of the Second Amendment was not to protect the institution of slavery as Anderson suggests, but rather to provide the American citizenry with a necessary tool to prevent encroachments by their federal government.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, stated James Madison in June 1789. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.

Samuel Adams made the same sentiments a year prior during the Massachusetts ratifying convention, where he proclaimed the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms

Having recently lived under the thumb of Great Britain, the Founders understood that the capacity for government to infringe on the rights of its people was universal and that such tyranny could certainly exist in America. As a result, the Founders viewed the individual right to keep and bear arms as essential in preserving the freedom and liberty of the American citizenry.

Andersons attempt to make racism the reason behind the establishment of the Second Amendment falls in lockstep with Marxist curricula like the New York Times 1619 Project. The goal isnt merely to just falsify our history, but to do so in a way that breeds further division within the country. Rather than divide us by economic status or class, this kind of racial Marxism seeks to pit Americans against one another based on race.

Ultimately, the propagation of such an ideology will sow discord throughout the nation, all the while allowing power-hungry politicians and a ruling class to assume more power and control of our lives.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a student attending the University of Mary Washington.

More:
Historian Falsely Claims The Second Amendment Was Created To Protect Slavery - The Federalist