SCOTUS begins demolition of 2nd Amendment
No. It’s not hyperbole, either. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the rationale behind the natural right encapsulated in the 2nd Amendment, in my view, inasmuch as its ruling doesn’t sanction the prohibition of criminals from obtaining firearms as it does reinforces the government’s right to track who has them. For the Greater Good, you see. AP:
A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on “straw” purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.
The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.
The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress’ effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.
Skip the loaded, propagandistic AP rhetoric about “sham” buyers. Unlawful recipients are always going to obtain firearms unlawfully. Here, the recipient of the weapon purchased by a relative is lawfully able to own a gun. As was the purchaser. So what business is it of the government’s that one private, law abiding party transferred the gun to another? The purchaser wasn’t a criminal (until now); the recipient wasn’t a criminal (until now). Yet today, by criminalizing legal activity under the pretense of public safety to protect us against always potential criminal activity, the government has insinuated its way into a measure of control over a natural right, and set the stage for the end of private sales of firearms — which itself creates the conditions for creating a kind of back door registry.
And as a bonus, we’ve created a new class of criminal, the law-abiding citizen who breaks the law by engaging in commerce with another law abiding citizen.
Abramski claimed Congress’ goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.
The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski’s view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration.
Yeah? Well so what? Anthony Kennedy disagreed, and that’s that. Period.
Well and truly fucked doesn’t begin to describe things.
Soon enough, the government will turn every erstwhile legal gun owner into a criminal in order to make sure that guns are “kept out of the hands of criminals.” More feel-good, PC bullshit from a SCOTUS that has a de facto 4 votes for every piece of progressive policy, and needs only one swing vote from some justice worried about his legacy or how the New York Times is likely to treat him or her.
Guess we’ll all be outlaws soon enough. Which, told you so.