Categories
BW Member Blog

Why it matters

One rises to speak to the houseplant-in-chief’s push to ban ‘weapons of war’, (how would he know?) a leap of executive overreach purporting to ban the single most popular sporting firearm in the US, as part of a broader goal. It is well known that the AR platform is one of the most versatile, adaptable systems, with a stunning array of cartridge choices and accessories, (Barbie, for grownups) on the market; rendering it a fit tool for any of an huge number of shooting disciplines. That adaptability also leads to the system being a very capable defensive tool, in the unfortunate event that such is needed. This popularity is, I respectfully submit, the driving factor behind the push to ban the system. I accept that other causes are being forwarded as the real reason; but the “executive” has already said any semi-auto firearm that accepts a detachable mag is an ‘assault weapon’ that can be banned. It follows that starting with the single most popular platform would be a very big step toward achieving that goal.

There have been a number of atrocities committed over the years; several using semi-automatic rifles. I join with the rest of the population in being sickened by the choices some individuals make, and in wanting to find a solution to these attacks; but – as we are all well aware – there is no one ’cause’ and one-size-fits-all solutions sound delightful, but have no practical effects on real-world issues. If the goal is to affect violent crime, the ‘solutions’ should be directed toward that goal; instead of directed at people who are not the problem, in hopes of potential tricke-down effects on the situation.

Too; while it increasingly seems more like a popular fiction that is being propped up for the cameras, than an operating principle; this is still supposed to be a nation of laws, not of populist whimsy. Regulatory proposals should reflect this, unless ‘we the people’ are ready to abandon that principle.

It is a matter of settled law that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution identifies a fundamental right of the people; and secures to the individual the right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to any specific militia service. It is equally a matter of settled law that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions can be placed on the exercise of any fundamental right. It follows, then, to find the limits of reasonable and I consider that barrier to exist wherever the fundamental rights guarded by the 2nd Amendment are treated differently than those guarded by the other elements of the Bill of Rights.

[side note: Consider: many of the same people who want ‘shall not be infringed’ to be treated as something a little less significant than a guideline; wax ever-so-theatrically outraged at the merest hint that any restrictions even MIGHT be placed on ’emanations from a penumbra’. Curious, that.]

If we are to pay attention to the intent of the people who drafted the document, we are bound to consider what they said regarding those rights they considered important enough to single out. If not, then the Constitution is no more than a general guideline which can be ignored as easily as followed. I consider the latter perspective unacceptable from anyone in a position of authority, much less someone who swore an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution. Enter brandon and his apparent belief that he can pencil whip the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution, because reasons.

It’s a LONG way to November 24.

Leave a Reply