The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. That should mean any weapon used for offensive or defensive acts. The reason was very clear. It was intended for us to be able to maintain a militia that could defend this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But the Seventh Circuit has decided that short-barreled rifles, or SBRs, aren’t arms covered by the amendment.
(I had to use a screenshot that I linked since X is having issues with the embed codes)
Now, this is a problem for a lot of reasons.
First, let’s talk a bit about the Miller decision. Yes, it’s a Supreme Court decision that lower courts have had to contend with for ages now. However, Miller dealt with a sawed-off shotgun. The Court in that decision said that such a weapon had no militia use, thus it wasn’t covered by the Second Amendment. That was wrong, of course, because that ruling was issued in 1934, so after shotguns had been used so effectively in World War I that the Germans tried to get using them considered a war crime.
Further, Miller himself was dead, so there wasn’t really another side arguing one way or the other in that case.
Still, when you look at Bruen, it doesn’t say anything about how you can just decide something isn’t an arm simply because you don’t think it’s useful for warfare.
Of course, then there’s the fact that if SBRs aren’t useful for warfare as a tool of the militia, then why is the standard issue weapon for the United States Army technically an SBR? The M4 has a barrel length of 14.5 inches, which is an inch and a half shorter than what is necessary for a rifle to not be considered an SBR. If SBRs aren’t useful for militia use, then why is it issued to every one of our combat troops and was used in pretty much every firefight out troops saw in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Now, let’s talk about the “step two in our Bruen” thing that’s cut off.
We turn to step two in our Bruen analysis in the interest of completeness. As discussed below, even if short-barreled rifles were “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, historical tradition likely supports regulating them.
The court goes on to argue that Rahimi permits similar but more modern laws can be considered.
Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 692. When the historical laws “address[ed] particular problems” there is a good chance “contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons” are also permissible. Id. The laws do not need to “precisely match”—the contemporary one must only “comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment….” Id.
Now, I’m not an attorney, but this sure looks like the Rahimi decision seems to suggest that contemporary laws can be applied when the historical laws addressed either that problem or similar ones. In other words, if the Founding Fathers were trying to address drunk people carrying guns, as they did, a more contemporary law seeking to address a similar problem would apply.
Instead, the Seventh Circuit judges just decided to accept contemporary laws as good enough simply because they don’t like the idea of SBRs.
That’s not even getting into the possibility that these judges’ nominations might not even be valid since everything Biden signed looks to have been the result of an autopen and we can’t be sure Biden even knew what was happening in the first place.
Every single day we here at Bearing Arms will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the pro-2A reporting our readers deserve.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Second Amendment and to fact-check the anti-gunners on and off the bench. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership
Read the full article here
