Mediaboss Marketing

Lack of communication on guns, disregard of, first, rule of law. and then of a faith tradition

At the conclusion of reading this article, my reaction was one of sadness. I believe this sadness resulted from three thoughts. First, I can remember my elementary school days when we practiced protecting ourselves from enemy air raids with convention/nuclear weapons. We had to get under our desks and close our eyes.

Fortunately, before I moved on to high school, these drills were no longer necessary. Unfortunately, today all schools must have active shooter procedures, which must be practiced. Also, unfortunately, the occurrences of active shooter incidents in schools and in our communities continue to increase. I do not profess to have the wisdom to know what we should change, but I am convinced nothing will change until we learn to talk to each other and respect each others viewpoints.

My second sadness is that my neighbors appear to be taking the perspective that any law passed by our legislature and signed by our governor can be disregarded by us and our Frederick County government. I am proud to be an American and to have served our great country in our military.

Our long-standing commitment to free election and peaceful transition of power (as embodied in our Constitution and Amendments) is the foundation upon which our democracy rests. The rule of law is also central to our system of government. We should not be rebelling against laws that have been or may be passed by our state legislature. That is the purpose of the court system. Also, the rebellious tone sends the wrong message to our children.

Finally, my greatness sadness is there is never a faith component to thesediscussions. Our Founding Fathers were men of faith. Yet, when we discuss important issues, we conveniently omit our faith traditions. These traditions form a moral compass upon which we should live our lives and make decisions. While the Scriptures of our major faith traditions do not address guns, they do provide a framework for living a moral life.

In the Christian faith tradition, which I practice, a central theme of the Gospel is Gods love for us and the love we should have for each other. I suspect many citizens who have signed the petition have also been raised in a faith tradition. I also suspect the moral compass provided in their Scriptures was not considered when they signed. Perhaps in future discussions on the 2nd Amendment, we can establish a common basis for an informed discussion by sharing with each other the foundation of our moral compass.

At the conclusion of the 1990 movie Ghost, the last thing Sam says to Molly as he leaves this world is: Its amazing, Molly. The love inside, you take it with you. Love is the only thing we can take with us when we die. Lets include our love for each other in future discussions of the Second Amendment and all other contentious issues we must face.

Michael J. Conk is a resident of Frederick County.

Michael J. Conk is a resident

of Frederick County.

Read more:
Open Forum: Response to Second Amendment Sanctuary - The Winchester Star

Corporate Tyranny Shameful Harassment

United States -(AmmoLand.com)-One thing is becoming more and more clear the legislative and political arenas are now only part of the overall battle over our Second Amendment rights. While Second Amendment supporters have done well in those arenas, including making the Supreme Court reasonably pro-Second Amendment, the new arenas threaten to outflank the gains in the political and legislative arenas.

These arenas include, but they are not limited to, corporate gun control, leveraging pop culture, Silicon Valley censorship, and social stigmatization. The fact of the matter is anti-Second Amendment extremists have developed their plans in case they suffer a substantial reverse in the Supreme Court. The right ruling would strike down anti-Second Amendment legislation and secure the legal rights we seek, but those rights could very well be a dead letter.

Lets start with corporate gun control. The wallet has always been the Achilles heel of the firearms industry. When Andrew Cuomo was quarterbacking big-city lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the goal was to force companies to choose between accepting settlements that forced them to agree to the agenda of anti-Second Amendment extremists or go bankrupt from massive legal fees against dozens of plaintiffs.

This new corporate gun control is operating on the same principle at least where banks and financial institutions are concerned. The goal is this: Maybe they cant pass a law that prohibits manufacturing modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms, but if banks deny business to those who make AR-15s or component parts, then the AR-15 will eventually fade away without any laws passed to ban it. Even if it isnt a bank, a company like Salesforce can force a licensed dealer to choose between an expensive change in software or acquiescing to an agenda.

Silicon Valleys censorship is just as threatening as corporate gun control. Social media and the internet have become crucial for Second Amendment supporters to not only get facts out, but to coordinate their activism and to help each other out. Shut down the voices, though, either through a one-sided application of rules of conduct, and all of the sudden, Second Amendment supporters are cut off. This is what Instagram is doing with its new rules, for instance.

Meanwhile, anti-Second Amendment extremists are leveraging pop culture. Think of it this way Hollywood stars generate press, even when they are not at the A-List levels of celebrity like Angelina Jolie or Meryl Streep. In fact, these days, its about getting press for those who have seen better days, like Alyssa Milano. In the fierce competition, anti-Second Amendment advocacy can help an actor or actress get work and keep a career going. It would also include what gets included in storylines on hit TV shows.

That celebrity power then helps generate the social stigmatization of gun ownership and Second Amendment support. That social stigmatization has been a long-time goal, going back to Eric Holders famous desire to brainwash Americans against guns. In this case, it is about making it so painful to defend our rights that you choose silence and acquiescence rather than lose out on promotions, being the outcast in your neighborhood, or even seeing your family face being berated or worse.

The fact of the matter is that while the political and legislative battles to defend our rights are important, they have never been the only battles we have to fight. This is why the approach we choose to defend our rights matters and why we have to be mindful of how we come across. The ultimate battle we must win for our Second Amendment rights is in the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Read this article:
Winning The Fight Beyond Elections and Legislation Winning The Fight Beyond Elections and Legislation Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

December 18, 2019

Photo/Lawrence Emerson

Part of the crowd outside the Warren Green Buiding last Thursday, Dec. 12, during Second Amendment testimony before Fauquiers board of supervisors.

Board Chairman Chris Butler

By .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)Staff Journalist

In response to testimony from 74 people at the boards Dec. 12 meeting and hundreds of emails, phone calls and personal conversations, the revised draft document declares Fauquier a Constitutional County.

> Resolution at bottom of story

Demanding tougher language and a more explicit endorsement of the Second Amendment, some critics called the previous version watered down.

No one at the four-hour-plus meeting last Thursday spoke in support of gun-law restrictions.

The board will vote on the revised document at 5 p.m. Monday, Dec. 23, in the Warren Green Building at 10 Hotel St. in Warrenton. The public will not be permitted to comment during the meeting.

Supervisors Chairman Chris Butler (Lee District) backs the resolution and expects the five-member board to approve it.

I think this will pass but wont speak for anyone, Mr. Butler wrote in a text Wednesday.

About 2,000 people gathered last Thursday outside the meeting to show their support to keep and bear arms.

The vast majority of speakers urged the supervisors to approve language designating Fauquier as either a Second Amendment sanctuary or a Constitutional County.

In defining a Second Amendment sanctuary, one speaker said Sheriff Bob Mosier wouldnt enforce unconstitutional laws and Commonwealths Attorney Scott C. Hook wouldnt prosecute those people in violation of such laws.

The board also wouldnt appropriate county funds to enforce them, the speaker told the board.

Fauquiers three-page resolution doesnt include such provisions.

Instead, it states that the board reaffirms its Oath of Office to support and defend the United States and Virginia Constitutions and stands as a Constitutional County with the overwhelming number of Constitutional and Sanctuary Counties across Virginia.

So far, more than 90 Virginia counties, cities and towns have adopted similar resolutions, according to published reports.

We took an oath to uphold the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions, Mr. Butler wrote in support of the Constitutional County resolution. We are bound by the four corners of both documents, not just the Second Amendment.

As I stated before, both documents are our sanctuary. We are stating we wont stand for any infringement of any right protected by these documents.

Fauquiers resolution also strongly condemns statements of the Governor and members of the General Assembly threatening to withhold funds to localities that support the constitutional rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms.

Gov. Ralph Northam (D) backs stricter gun laws, which the 2020 General Assembly will consider when it convenes a 60-day session Jan. 8.

On Nov. 5, Democrats won majorities in both the 100-member Virginia House of Delegates and 40-member Senate. Not since 1993 has the party controlled state government.

ContactDon Del RossoatDon@FauquierNow.comor 540-270-0300.

Resolution on Right to Bear... by Fauquier Now on Scribd

Member comments

Constitutional Insurgent December 20, 2019 at 5:57 pm

On edit for clarity....not the legislation, but numerous bills across the country. Some passed and enforced, some successfully defeated or repealed.

Constitutional Insurgent December 20, 2019 at 5:05 pm

But yes, instead of mobilizing early in the face of un-Constitutional infringement....I'm sure that you would very much like us to wait.

We will not comply, and we will let that be known now, not after it's too late.

maryjdkns@gmail.com December 20, 2019 at 4:48 pm

Let's wait to see what the general assembly legislates. No previous legislation has ever entertained the idea of taking away the guns of law-abiding citizens.. This presumptive strike for a gun sanctuary is beyond idiotic.

bblimber December 20, 2019 at 4:31 pm

Well gee. We all know that a law will solve this problem, so why don't we just pass a law that it's illegal to kill someone. That way no matter how someone might chose to end someone else life, then at least they know the consequences gosh darn it!

Constitutional Insurgent December 20, 2019 at 2:58 pm

Constitutional Insurgent December 20, 2019 at 2:54 pm

And? It hasnt been in the interest of the gun control lobby to study defensive gun use......for a reason. Use Google, you get much the same from any reputable source.

Tony Bentley December 20, 2019 at 2:46 pm

Constitutional Insurgent December 20, 2019 at 2:04 pm

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Estimates based on CDCs surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole CDCs survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

Tony Bentley December 20, 2019 at 10:34 am

Can anyone give me the stats for how many lives guns have SAVED per year?

Gunner December 20, 2019 at 5:09 am

Actually, they are ridiculously easy to get...for criminals. That's the point in my view. The black market is one thing, but the dark web is a whole other ball of wax. You can buy d@*m near anything with no regulation or checks WHATSOEVER. And do it with crypto currency. Yet 'they' want to push more regulations and restrictions on the law abiding and strip us of the means to to protect ourselves. That is one major factor that is never really discussed by society and an inconvenient truth for the left they don't want to admit if they are actually aware of it.

Constitutional Insurgent December 19, 2019 at 11:46 am

But I do know this, continually infringing upon our Constitutional Rights and civil liberties, is not going to help.

Weapons aren't 'ridiculously' easy to get. Period. Contrary to absurd claims from the gun control lobby...I don't have to undergo near the time and labor for other lawful items, as I do for firearms.

Truepat December 19, 2019 at 10:42 am

It's not whether it can be fixed, it's all about those that don't want it fixed. The bright side is that the turn out all over Virginia in support of our Constitution shows that the "silent" majority are no longer silent. That's the last thing they thought would happen or wanted......

DonkeyFarmer December 19, 2019 at 9:45 am

Demo- I actually agree with everything you just wrote. Now how is banning a single type of rifle like an AR15 going to help?

Demosthenes December 19, 2019 at 8:33 am

I would agree that a lot of today's violence stems from a loss of stable families.

But assuming that is true, how do we fix the problem? Can you imagine a way to regulate happy and healthy families? Shall we pass a law requiring every family to have two happy and competent parents who sit down with the kids at dinnertime each night?

Should we mandate universal mental healthcare with regular assessment requirements? Would that even prevent the violence that is taking place now?

Sadly, I don't think government is capable of fixing broken families or broken young men.

But the government can create policies that prevent those broken young men from having ridiculously easy access to weapons.

Constitutional Insurgent December 19, 2019 at 7:44 am

That's exactly correct, Trupat. The breakdown of the family, coupled with the social media-ization...drive-by consumerism and a believed entitlement to instant gratification....are the true causes of any increased violence; not, as the gun control cabal would have one believe - the "easy availability of firearms".

Truepat December 19, 2019 at 6:43 am

The true unfortunate reason behind the majority of shootings was due to a break down in the family unit, you can research the conclusion of each case, I already know. I do find it interesting that the "gun advocates" ignore the fact that city gang violence such as Chicago kills hundreds a year but are never listed. DC is right there with them.

jim goodwin December 19, 2019 at 5:06 am

Glad to see the new language includes "self-defense", though I don't think it needs to be hyphenated.

DonkeyFarmer December 18, 2019 at 10:28 pm

*the *tied

DonkeyFarmer December 18, 2019 at 10:25 pm

The 2A sancuary movement might help to temper the gun control laws. But the real way to deal with this is to vote. Let three democrats overplay their hand, get tired up in court, then vote them out. Declaring yourself in violation of the law is not going to do much but make them dig in deeper.

Jim Griffin December 18, 2019 at 9:51 pm

Agreed, threaded the needle, just saying no to sanctuary is the right thing to do.

I want all my rights, 2A included, and the Rule of Law, though Jeffersonian American is likely more eager than ever to dissolve Fauquier County government. RGLJA is happy the resolution no longer mentions the sheriff (as it once did).

DonkeyFarmer made good suggestions about keeping guns from the wrong hands. Hope some of it becomes law.

Demosthenes December 18, 2019 at 9:37 pm

Alright Donkeyfarmer, let's see what happens. I'll buy you a drink sometime if you are right.

DonkeyFarmer December 18, 2019 at 9:35 pm

Demon- 2A supporters are not claiming any right is more important than another. You are simply making it up. Repeating your lie is not going to work.

Demosthenes December 18, 2019 at 8:55 pm

Next up: The 2A people will start beating a dead horse about how gun rights are more important than all other rights.

_()_/

philshea December 18, 2019 at 8:22 pm

1st amendment depends on the 2nd amendment. We know this is mostly symbolic, but so are "sanctuary cities," and looks how that has changed them.

bblimber December 18, 2019 at 7:07 pm

I beg to differ - they WILL exploit their power. Unless of course you hold to the arrogant notion that "we are more enlightened than past generations."

@twotterpilot: By the numbers, hardly a tidal wave. Now as for a true "...tidal wave of death and carnage" How about the one gratuitously promoted by the narrow, parochial interests of PPoA and it's allies.2015 638,169 2014 652,639 2013 664,435 2012 699,202 2011 730,322 2010 765,651 2009 789,507 2008 825,564 2007 827,609 2006 852,385 2005 820,151 2004 839,226 2003 848,163 2002 854,122 2001 853,485 2000 857,475 1999 861,789 Total: 13,379,894

Gunner December 18, 2019 at 4:38 pm

Just me, I see your statistics and raise you with genocide; horrific acts which statistically began with the disarming of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

But I'll make you a deal. Once you, and you desired 'leadership', can ensure repeat, violent offenders are kept of the street instead of repeatedly released back into society, eradicate innocent deaths due to drunk driving, wipe opioid deaths from the nation, generate absolutely perfect doctors who don't kill (for lack of a better word) patients through malpractice, and fill every pool in the nation with concrete, then I would be glad to talk about my guns. That is just a short, a very short, list of incidents that kill more people than active shooters. Do your research, apply critical thought. Don't act on emotion.

twotterpilot December 18, 2019 at 4:10 pm

Agreed, just me. The numbers speak for themselves. There will be more depressing statistics to add as common sense gun control legislation is thwarted by such resolutions, adding to the tidal wave of death and carnage promoted by the narrow, parochial interests of the NRA and it's allies.

Gunner December 18, 2019 at 2:59 pm

Just me, your point?

just me December 18, 2019 at 2:37 pm

April 1999 Colombine High School - 12March 2005 Red Lake Senior HS - 7October 2006 W. Nickel Mines School - 5April 2007 Virginia Tech -32April 2012 Oikos University - 7December 2012 Sandy Hook ES -26May 2014 UCSB - 6October 2015 Umpqua Community College - 10November 2017 Rancho Tehama ES - 5February 2018 Stoneman Douglas HS -17May 2018 Santa Fe HS -10

Truepat December 18, 2019 at 1:14 pm

Represent and stand with our fellow Virginians!!

Facebook comments

Enter your email address above to begin receivingnews updates from FauquierNow.com via email.

Friday, December 20

Read the original here:
Supervisors ready to adopt 2nd Amendment stance - Fauquier Now

GREENE, Va. (CBS19 NEWS) -- Greene County is considering whether to declare itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary and heard the publics opinion on the matter Tuesday at the Greene County Board of Supervisors meeting.

The proposal comes after Governor Ralph North announced he will reintroduce gun laws in January 2020s general assembly session.

Dozens of gun supporters packed into the administration building for the meeting and even more surrounded the building outside as fellow advocates spoke in front of the board.

One of the speakers was Greene County Sheriff Steve Smith, who said it is his duty to protect the Second Amendment right.

"You promise to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, said Smith. The 2nd Amendment is part of that. The people here have spoken. They want that protected and I will do everything I can to do that."

Smith said new gun laws can get those who don't deserve it in trouble.

"Responsible people that own guns and they shoot them, look like they shoot them, like to hunt...they should not be punished because of criminals that go around here and commit crimes with the guns, said Smith"

As soon as Virginia Democrats took over the House and Senate after the election on November 5, Governor Ralph Northam announced he will reintroduce new gun laws and he's confident they will become law.

Pete Costigan was the only person in the crowd who spoke out against making Greene County a Second Amendment Sanctuary before hearing out the new laws.

"I am not in favor of the Board of Supervisors supporting any Second Amendment resolution before the general assembly has met to consider any new proposals regarding firearms, ownership, and use, said Costigan.

Smith said becoming a sanctuary for guns will protect residents rights as citizens.

"It will let the government know in Richmond and in Washington that the citizens here in Greene are awake and aware of what's going on, what they're trying to pass and they don't like it, said Smith. They don't want any part of it. And they made that known tonight."

The board seemed in favor of making Greene a Second Amendment Sanctuary but decided to review it again at their meeting on December 10 before voting.

Follow this link:
Greene County considering becoming a Second Amendment Sanctuary - CBS19 News

This piece was originally published by SCOTUSblog.

In one sense, the stakes inNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New Yorkcouldnt be lower: The challenged regulation, a one-of-a-kind New York City restriction on transporting licensed handguns outside city limits, has already been repealed, arguably rendering the case moot. But when it comes to Second Amendment doctrine and methodology, the stakes are higher than theyve been in a decade. If the petitioners have their way, the Supreme Court could reject the mainstream approach for deciding Second Amendment questions in favor of a more radical test focused solely on text, history, and tradition and without consideration of contemporary realities of guns and gun violence. That would be a mistake.

The methodological debate animating this case began 10 years ago inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes like self-defense, and that the right like all constitutional rights is subject to regulation. But, aside from listing some presumptively lawful measures, the court did not identify a doctrinal mechanism to evaluate those regulations (tiers of scrutiny, adequate alternatives, substantial burden, etc.), instead leaving the task to the lower courts.

In more than 1,000 cases sinceHeller, thedoctrinal dust has begun to settle, and the outlines of constitutional rules and standards have become clearer. Of course, no constitutional right is governed by a single doctrinal test; even the canard that fundamental rights get strict scrutiny repeated often by the petitioners in this case issimply false. (Free speech claims, to take one obvious example, are governed by a wide range of tests.) But courts have nonetheless converged, with striking unanimity, on a general framework for adjudicating Second Amendment cases. That framework is frequently called the two-step test.

The first step is a threshold inquiry about whether the Second Amendment comes into play at all. AsHellermakes clear, theres no scrutiny necessary for bans on possession by felons (with arguable and limited exceptions for as-applied challenges), or dangerous or unusual weapons such as machine guns, or weapons in sensitive places. For those regulations that do raise Second Amendment questions, courts proceed to the second step and apply something like a sliding scale of means-end scrutiny to evaluate the relationship between the state interest served by the regulation and the methods employed to further that interest. The more seriously a regulation interferes with the core interest of self-defense in the home, the more scrutiny it gets.

This framework is so basic as to be archetypal constitutional rights adjudication frequently involves a threshold inquiry into the rights applicability, followed by some context-specific scrutiny of burden, purpose and tailoring. In the First Amendment context, for example, courts regularly ask whether an activity campaign contributions, for example counts as speech before applying whatever doctrinal test is appropriate.

In short, assome constitutional law scholars have concluded, using the two-part framework means treating the right to keep and bear arms like the fundamental right that it is. The two-part framework, moreover, accommodates both historical analysis and consideration of contemporary costs and benefits; it includes both bright-line rules (prohibitions on laws that go too far) and standards. And the fact that it has been endorsed by every federal court of appeals is a resounding vote of confidence.

And yet the petitioners in this case contend that applying this common methodology converts the Second Amendment into a second-class right. Courts are too lenient with regard to the tailoring analysis, the argument goes, or misconstrue the historical element of the framework. They say the two-part test has been systematically misapplied.

Of course, mistakes are inevitable in any high-volume area of constitutional litigation, and some have undeniably occurred in Second Amendment cases. One court, for example, found that the amendment protectedonly those arms in existence at the nations founding not modern-day weapons like stun guns a decision overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court. In truth, such mistakes have been relatively rare. Most Second Amendment cases areweak to begin with. This is partly because ofHelleritself, which blessed as presumptively lawful various regulations that are often challenged, like felon-in-possession laws. Its also due to the fact that gun politics prevent most stringent regulations from being enacted in the first place this is not a target-rich environment for gun-rights litigators. When a court errs in upholding an unconstitutional law, however, the typical way to correct the error is through appellate decisions. In this case, by contrast, the Supreme Court is being asked to forgo the typical approach, toss out the consensus methodology and supercharge the Second Amendment with a new set of rules.

The most prominent alternative to the two-part framework is the one articulated by then-judge Brett Kavanaugh in a dissent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: That gun regulations should not be evaluated using any level of scrutiny, but rather by looking to text, history and tradition alone.

Some advocates of this new test hope and expect that it would expand the right to keep and bear arms to some imagined historical ideal, immune from regulation. But that historical image is itself ahistorical: Gun rights and regulations have coexisted for centuries. The laws have changed, because guns and gun violence have changed, but from the very beginning weve had versions of safe-storage requirements, bans on dangerous and unusual weapons, restrictions on public carrying and even outright bans on public carry including in supposed gun havens like Dodge City and Tombstone. Guns are a part of American history, but so, too, is gun regulation. For reference, there are more than 1,500 entries inDukes Repository of Historical Gun Laws, a searchable, non-comprehensive database of firearms regulations that predate the federal governments first major intervention into the field in 1934. A properly applied historical test should uphold a lot of gun regulation.

The main problem with relying solely on text, history and tradition, however, is that it doesnt provide useful guidance for modern-day regulations that respond to modern-day gun violence. The text alone cant tell you whether a machine gun is an arm or whether convicted felons are among the People the Second Amendment protects. The 27 words of the amendment are silent on many questions, and history and tradition dont speak with one voice there were and are significantregionaldifferences in approaches to gun regulation, as well as divisionsbetween urban and rural areas.

Perhaps in some extreme cases (a total ban on public carry, for example), text, history and tradition would provide relatively clear rules. But for most standard forms of modern gun regulation restrictive licensing schemes for public carry, for example, or prohibitions on high-capacity magazines or on gun possession by people convicted of domestic violence all of the work would be done by analogical reasoning. Judges would have to decide for themselves whether certain modern guns or gun laws are relevantly similar to laws from 150 or 200 years ago.

How would such a test of judicial analogies work in practice? Is a rocket launcher like a musket, because you can lift it, or is it like a cannon, because its so powerful? How is an AR-15 like a musket? Do you compare barrel lengths? Muzzle velocity? Relative deadliness? Such questions place a lot of weight on judges own, perhaps unexamined intuitions. In this way, the test of text, history and tradition simply cloaks judicial discretion in an air of objectivity.

In practice, the supposedly historical inquiry eventually comes back, in a roundabout and less transparent way, to the same kinds of questions that are front and center for means-end scrutiny. Good analogical reasoning requires finding relevant similarities, and whats most relevant about guns is their function, especially their usefulness for whatHellersays is the core lawful purpose of self-defense. If automatic weapons are prohibited, but semi-automatic handguns are permitted, does that materially interfere with peoples ability to defend themselves in their homes? If so, has the government shown that the prohibition is appropriately tailored to a sufficiently strong interest? The two-part framework makes those questions explicit, rather than laundering them through a subjective form of historical formalism.

Text, history and traditionabsolutely matterin the context of the Second Amendment, just as in other areas of constitutional law. But to make them the sole measure of constitutionality wouldnt give much useful guidance in hard cases, and would invite a lot of unarticulated, potentially hidden judicial discretion and power. Second Amendment scholarNelson Lund puts the point well: Pretending to find the answers in history and tradition will encourage either covert judicial policymaking, which is just what reliance on history and tradition is supposed to prevent, or ill-supported historical stories in defense of results that could honestly and responsibly be justified through normal means-end scrutiny.

The Supreme Court is being asked in this case to reject a doctrinal framework unanimously endorsed by the federal courts of appeals and widely used in constitutional-rights jurisprudence, and to adopt instead a brand-new doctrinal test that would almost certainly invite broad judicial discretion. We hope that the court declines that invitation.

Joseph Blocher is Lanty L. Smith 67 Professor of Law at Duke Law School, where he co-directs the Center for Firearms Law. Eric Ruben is assistant professor of law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Along with Darrell A.H. Miller of Duke Law School, they filedan amicus brief in support of neither sideinNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.

The views expressed here are the authors own and not necessarily those of the Brennan Center.

Read more:
The Supreme Court Shouldn't Disrupt the Judicial Consensus on the Second Amendment - brennancenter.org