In my last article I expressed my opinion that the seemingly positive direction the second amendment is going, should be taken with a grain of salt. Why? To put it simply, it seems as if the patriot movement is sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the court to define what their rights are. Free men assert their rights. This government was granted its power by men who claimed their right to arms, and to live free. The Second Amendment is not a right granted by government, but a directive by the people, telling the government it shall not be infringed. This is an uncomfortable topic as we have steered so far from what the original intent of the founders was, most people find comfort in some level of government control. A nation full of militiamen, bearing arms in defense of liberty, conjures up images of ragtag rednecks and hooligans. However, the citizen militia was supposed to be made up of educated men who understood the God of nature and his laws. One point I discussed is the rumors of an impending energy crisis. We all know a good crisis never goes to waste, and there is a doozy brewing in the background. In this article, I am going to try to explain the intricacies of a subtle game that I believe is being played. One that on the surface creates the perception of a fight for the Second Amendment, while keeping it tightly wrapped in the tentacles of government control.
Ever since the beginning of Trump’s second term, I have been critical of his so-called attempts to defend the Second Amendment. My argument is that the issues being pursued were of little consequence in the bigger scheme of things. For instance, why file a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff over his permitting process, when the State of California itself has some very restrictive gun laws? To me, it seemed like the focus was on things the government could keep in its control. Of course, after Pam Bondi was let go, the DOJ filed some suits against Virginia’s assault weapon bans, and the court has recently granted cert to two assault weapon ban cases. We have also had some pro2A rulings in the US v. Hemani and the Wolford v. Lopez cases. Here is the thing though. Wolford v. Lopez really dealt with the issue of conceal carry permits, and if the government could restrict permit holders from carrying on private property without explicit permission from the owner. The primary issue here? Permits, and the government deciding what the government can or cannot do. There are no historical laws or traditions that show permits being required to own or purchase firearms in our history, by the way. In Hemani, the court essentially said the use of an illegal drug wasn’t enough to have someone labeled as dangerous and prohibited from gun ownership.
Many people are under what I consider to be, a misguided perception that Trump is working to undo the NFA. I am not sure where anyone gets that impression from a guy who said he likes to take the guns first and go for due process later. Because, you know, going to court takes too long. However, he may be desperate to win the midterms, so who knows? The DOJ has just submitted its briefing to the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in a case called Brown v. ATF dealing with the issue of whether the government has the authority to regulate short barrel rifles and/or suppressors. In short, the DOJ is siding on the side of the NFA and is arguing that the government has the authority to ban what are considered dangerous and unusual weapons. This is despite the fact that the US v. Miller (1930s) and D.C. v. Heller cases set the stage for the “in common use analysis.” If a weapon is in common use among the public, it cannot be banned. According to Mark Smith, from Four Boxes Diner, the primary issue in the Miller case was short barrel shot guns. At the time, they were not considered to be commonly owned for lawful purposes and were seen as dangerous and unusual. The common use test was also applied in Heller to determine whether handguns could be banned. Because they are in common use, the court found they could not. In other words, the main question that should be asked in Brown v. ATF is if short barrel rifles and/or suppressors are in common use for lawful purposes. Remember, the Bruen decision of 2022 said that if a person’s conduct is covered by the Second Amendment, it is the burden of the government to prove its law is constitutional. In other words, the government is obligated in this case, to show why short barrel rifles and/or suppressors fall into the dangerous and unusual category and is exempt from the “in common use analysis.” The DOJ is literally going against the grain by suggesting the in common use analysis is at the plain text level, and not the historical analysis level, despite previous court rulings setting the precedent. In all honesty, there is no historical precedent for regulating arms at all. There were no restrictions barring anyone from owning any type of weapon.
In my opinion, and that is all it is, the DOJ is taking little steps to create the perception they are fighting for the Second Amendment. However, on the bigger issues that will have a more meaningful impact in the long run, they are fighting to keep control. The NFA is a vehicle, a tool used to keep the Second Amendment within the narrow confines of government granted rights as opposed to rights that are inalienable. The government never gives up power, and to sit around with your fingers crossed hoping they will do so is setting yourself up for failure. Sure, the court may rule that AR-15 bans are unconstitutional. So what? That is a branch of government deciding what our rights are. Will that stop the anti-gun mob from finding ways around it? No. I have said this before, and I will say it again. The Supreme Court is being disingenuous with its historical analysis standard because a true historical analysis will acknowledge the fact that this country was started by armed men who said no to government. That is just a fact.
I wouldn’t be looking for a new age of unfettered gun rights any time soon. Nor would I be waiting around for the government to undo the NFA.
Be sure to check out my latest book! The Psychology of Persuasive Propaganda: The Things You Should Know.
