Closer to a Fracture

In discussing the firing of Kevin Williamson a few days ago, @1967Mustangman closed the post with the observation, “…America inches closer to a fracture.” A District Court in Massachusetts  may have just moved us several feet closer thereto, in ruling that the Second Amendment permits a ban on possession of many categories of the most popular guns in the country. That the Judge, William G. Young, had a political axe to grind is suggested by his gratuitous observation in the opinion that Justice Scalia would have been “proud” of it. Such commentary in district court opinions are, let us say, unusual.

The law bans virtually all semi-automatic weapons, calling them “assault rifles.” As such, the court says (straight out of gun-banners’ talking points) they are useful to the military, therefore not protected  by the Second Amendment. This, itself, is a non sequitur.

As well, the opinions is – like most anti-gun propaganda – all but fact free. If a military force were armed with the civilian version of AR-15’s in question, it would be a laughably (it would be, at minimum, unkind to laugh as soldiers were cut down en masse as they would be, thus armed) ineffective force. Actual assault rifles, you see, have a selector switch which permits fully-automatic firing (the way they are invariably used, except by snipers), so the very name of the category of banned weapons is a fabrication. First, kill language, then kill rights. Civilian versions of AR-15’s and all other rifles mythically called “assault-rifles,” lack the full-auto function.

This law criminalizes at a stroke scores or hundreds of thousands of citizens subjects of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It will set local citizens at each others’ throats and this ruling will embolden anti-gun fanatics throughout the country. Every municipality and some states with anti-gun activists will be passing similar bans. Fractures (and punctures) to follow. Only a prompt Supreme Court ruling (an unlikely event) announcing that such weapons may not be banned under the Second Amendment can prevent what could easily become a violent upheaval. But, I think that may be precisely what the illiberal left is aiming for.

14+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Author: civil westman

Driven to achieve outward and visible things, I became a pilot, a doctor and a lawyer. Eventually, I noticed the world had still not beat a path to my door with raves. Now, as a septuagenarian I still work anesthesia part-time, fly my flight simulator to keep my brain sparking and try to elude that nagging, intrusive reminder that my clock is running out. Before it does, I am trying, earnestly, to find a theory of everything - to have even a brief "God's-eye" view of it all before the "peace which passeth all understanding."

19 thoughts on “Closer to a Fracture”

  1. I like this quote, “First, kill language, then kill rights.” This is why the left focuses so much on words. 

    8+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. I have wondered if  POTUS can get through the midterms, if he should then  have a private chat with the Chief Justice about the need to control overreaching and politicized courts. Either the executive will have to ignore them and cause a constitutional crisis or the SCOTUS can find a faster way to reel them in with a highly accelerated appeals process that shuts down their ability to freeze the nation by the whim of one unelected person. “It’s your mess John, clean it up or we blow it up”

    8+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. 10 Cents:
    I like this quote, “First, kill language, then kill rights.” This is why the left focus so much on words. 

    It is unsurprising that this could come from the Commonwealth People’s Republic of Massachusetts. They are gone.

    Which reminds me, have you noticed how entities often loudly proclaim the opposite of what they truly are? The totalitarian communist states are people’s republics or democratic republics. The official party newspaper in the USSR was Pravda* (truth). The NYT launched an ad campaign using The Truth as their new slogan. Nassim Taleb tweeted about the NYT ad back in February; he gets it. CNN’s slogan is “Facts First.”

    *Russians used to joke was that there’s no news in Pravda and no truth in Izvestia. The updated joke is that there’s no truth at CNN and facts are last at the NYT.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. Another blatantly unconstitutional ruling by a lower court in excess of their authority that the SCOTUS will slap down again. Time to impeach lawless judges and break up courts that refuse to follow the law.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. Doctor Bass Monkey:
    Another blatantly unconstitutional ruling by a lower court in excess of their authority that the SCOTUS will slap down again. Time to impeach lawless judges and break up courts that refuse to follow the law.

    When I took civics in high school, our teacher opined that the courts were our last defense against tyranny. This may have been true decades ago but the opposite is the case now, and has been for some time. Marbury v. Madison may have been a colossal error.

    9+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  6. Robert A. McReynolds:
    May have been? It is the grossest stab in the back by the Federalists and should have immediately led to states withdrawing from the union.

    It was not evident to me at the time (high school, not the early 19th century) that it was a bad idea. And it’s still not clear. Seems to me the problem is the Congress has become the weakest branch, having ceded much of its power to the executive and judiciary. As Bryan noted above,

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    Congress can control the courts. It could strip all Federal corpus from ruling on this stuff.

    The system is out of balance. The idea was to have three co-equal branches. Congress is much weaker than the others, almost to the point of irrelevancy. Relying on SCOTUS to fix problems is not really a solution.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  7. drlorentz:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    May have been? It is the grossest stab in the back by the Federalists and should have immediately led to states withdrawing from the union.

    It was not evident to me at the time (high school, not the early 19th century) that it was a bad idea. And it’s still not clear. Seems to me the problem is the Congress has become the weakest branch, having ceded much of its power to the executive and judiciary. As Bryan noted above,

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    Congress can control the courts. It could strip all Federal corpus from ruling on this stuff.

    The system is out of balance. The idea was to have three co-equal branches. Congress is much weaker than the others, almost to the point of irrelevancy. Relying on SCOTUS to fix problems is not really a solution.

    Well Madison really speaks to one of the biggest contentions of the 1787 Convention, the judiciary becoming an oligarch. One if the anti-federalist papers written by Brutus warned that giving the Supremes judicial review would result in the weakening and irrelevancy of the legislature. Furthermore Marshal promised during the Virginia ratification debates that this would not be the case. Spencer Roane of Virginia really took the court to task over this ruling and he was absolutely correct.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. Congress is weak by choice. It could impeache and remove judges. It closes not too because none of them want to be controversial.  Even Rand, who could have stopped the consensus to let the omnibus go to a vote. They are, to a one, knaves.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. Bryan G. Stephens:
    Congress is weak by choice. It could impeache and remove judges. It closes not too because none of them want to be controversial.  Even Rand, who could have stopped the consensus to let the omnibus go to a vote. They are, to a one, knaves.

    By choice but not by design. Congress has broad powers over the courts. The only court created by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. Congress is mentioned four times in Article III, giving it power to determine some jurisdictions, venues, and punishments. All the inferior courts are creatures of the Congress, which means the Congress can create or destroy them.

    This was precisely my point, above: Congress needs to reassert its equal status among the branches. Currently, the Congress does not have any institutional pride. It has degenerated into a place of partisan wrangling. It was not always so.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  10. Kozak:
    Well I’m one step closer to being a criminal.

    Molon Labe….

    “Molon Labe…” means come and take them. I didn’t know so I looked it up.

    Good to see you, Kozak.

     

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  11. Stina:

    Who is Ryan?

    I suck at life. Don’t mind me. I’m going to go now, lol.

    Stina, please stay. Larry can go instead. 🙂

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply