A panel of the 7th Circuit left in place some local ordinances banning assault rifles.
The gymnastics they had to go through even trying to make sense of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on gun laws were exhausting. (Paraphrasing):
Well, you need to understand the original *intent* but you have to adapt your understanding of the actual firearms to accommodate modern sensibilities. And, to do so, you have to be mindful of the types of regulatory ordinances that were in place in 1791 or maybe it’s 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted. One part of the analysis is to determine whether the firearm is atypical of those owned by the general population, in which case, it’s not protected by the Second Amendment; or, if it’s typical and therefore does enjoy Second Amendment protection. If people buy enough of a certain kind of gun, it will magically transform from something the Founders “originally’ sought to protect. Also, this entire body of jurisprudence was invented in the last 15 years.
Like I’ve probably said before, it’s pretty trivial to fiddle with levels of abstraction to get to an “originalist” outcome that you like. The current jurisprudence pretends fealty to the text of the Second Amendment but then, despite the text’s focus on militias, somehow self-defense is the central purpose of the provision. It’s dizzying.
Leave a Reply