48 ms·

How does Congress expect to pass legislation like this when there is a 6-3 conservative judge majority who will almost certainly defend maximalist interpretatio

How does Congress expect to pass legislation like this when there is a 6-3 conservative judge majority who will almost certainly defend maximalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> How does Congress expect to pass legislation like this when there is a 6-3 conservative judge majority who will almost certainly defend maximalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment? (1) The Supreme Court has no role in whether legislation passes. (2) “A member of Congress, as sole sponsor with no cosponsors, introduces a bill” isn't evidence that Congress, as a whole, thinks anything positive about the subject matter, political prospects, or, were it to pass, post-adoption legal prospects of the bill.
- claytoneast 6y ago
  I understand that, I was a step ahead of myself in my mind. My question is better phrased as: why write legislation at all if you think the Supreme Court would very likely strike it down were it passed? What is the point of this effort?
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    Posturing, advertising, showing that you are doing something and it's everyone else standing in your way. Of course, that's only weakly grounded in reality, but maybe still worth doing from an electoral standpoint. It's discussed a bit here: https://theconstitutionalist.org/2021/01/27/from-insincere-voting-to-insurrection-by-anthony-l-ives/ https://theconstitutionalist.org/2021/01/27/from-insincere-v... On a more credulous note, it may also be valuable from a deliberative perspective to have these discussions in the body even if they don't result in change in the short term. That's undermined by the fact that the chamber is often pretty empty during debate, and that members of congress (and their staffs) can talk outside of the chamber, but it may still have an element of truth to it.
beervirus 6y ago
"Maximalist" sure is a funny way of saying "historically and textually accurate."
- xxpor 6y ago
  Heller is only 12 years old.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    Yes, but Heller relied on the text and history from a lot longer ago than that.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      Because there was essentially nothing in between 1789 and the rise of the modern "gun rights" movement starting in the 80s to support it. The current interpretation would have been completely preposterous in the 60s and 70s. Just see how gun laws were used against the Black Panthers in the 60s.
      - beervirus 6y ago
        Yes, gun restrictions do have racist roots. Excellent point.
- claytoneast 6y ago
  Good point, we aren't generally allowed to own RPGs and attack helicopters, so it's not maximalist. However, RPGs and helicopters were not around at the time of the passing of the amendment, so I'm not sure we can that it is historically and textually accurate. For that matter, the guns this legislation would target weren't around then either, so I'm not sure how useful that criteria really is.
detaro 6y ago
It's at a stage of "one single person has submitted this" (no co-sponsors), not quite "Congress expects to pass legislation"?
aww_dang 6y ago
If I had to guess, I'd say they could wait for the next highly publicized shooting event. A compliant media will create hysteria as always. Aside from partisan concerns, fear drives media engagement. It isn't hard to imagine how such a scenario could be leveraged to get a bill like this passed. If the courts strike it down later, they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  No meaningful gun control came about after Sandy Hook (where someone took out an entire classroom of first graders) nor Las Vegas (where one man shot 411 people). I think most of the Democrats at this point have come around to the "nothing's gonna happen, stop spending political capital on it" approach by now. This legislation is by one of the... quirkier members of Congress, with no cosponsors.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Fair enough. I'm not sure they had the same numbers in the House and Senate during those incidents. Although that is the only way I can see something like this passing.

How does Congress expect to pass legislation like this when there is a 6-3 conservative judge majority who will almost certainly defend maximalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> How does Congress expect to pass legislation like this when there is a 6-3 conservative judge majority who will almost certainly defend maximalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment? (1) The Supreme Court has no role in whether legislation passes. (2) “A member of Congress, as sole sponsor with no cosponsors, introduces a bill” isn't evidence that Congress, as a whole, thinks anything positive about the subject matter, political prospects, or, were it to pass, post-adoption legal prospects of the bill.

claytoneast 6y ago
I understand that, I was a step ahead of myself in my mind. My question is better phrased as: why write legislation at all if you think the Supreme Court would very likely strike it down were it passed? What is the point of this effort?
- dllthomas 6y ago
  Posturing, advertising, showing that you are doing something and it's everyone else standing in your way. Of course, that's only weakly grounded in reality, but maybe still worth doing from an electoral standpoint. It's discussed a bit here: https://theconstitutionalist.org/2021/01/27/from-insincere-voting-to-insurrection-by-anthony-l-ives/ https://theconstitutionalist.org/2021/01/27/from-insincere-v... On a more credulous note, it may also be valuable from a deliberative perspective to have these discussions in the body even if they don't result in change in the short term. That's undermined by the fact that the chamber is often pretty empty during debate, and that members of congress (and their staffs) can talk outside of the chamber, but it may still have an element of truth to it.

beervirus 6y ago

"Maximalist" sure is a funny way of saying "historically and textually accurate."

xxpor 6y ago
Heller is only 12 years old.
- beervirus 6y ago
  Yes, but Heller relied on the text and history from a lot longer ago than that.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    Because there was essentially nothing in between 1789 and the rise of the modern "gun rights" movement starting in the 80s to support it. The current interpretation would have been completely preposterous in the 60s and 70s. Just see how gun laws were used against the Black Panthers in the 60s.
    - beervirus 6y ago
      Yes, gun restrictions do have racist roots. Excellent point.
claytoneast 6y ago
Good point, we aren't generally allowed to own RPGs and attack helicopters, so it's not maximalist. However, RPGs and helicopters were not around at the time of the passing of the amendment, so I'm not sure we can that it is historically and textually accurate. For that matter, the guns this legislation would target weren't around then either, so I'm not sure how useful that criteria really is.

detaro 6y ago

It's at a stage of "one single person has submitted this" (no co-sponsors), not quite "Congress expects to pass legislation"?

aww_dang 6y ago

If I had to guess, I'd say they could wait for the next highly publicized shooting event. A compliant media will create hysteria as always. Aside from partisan concerns, fear drives media engagement. It isn't hard to imagine how such a scenario could be leveraged to get a bill like this passed. If the courts strike it down later, they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

ceejayoz 6y ago
No meaningful gun control came about after Sandy Hook (where someone took out an entire classroom of first graders) nor Las Vegas (where one man shot 411 people). I think most of the Democrats at this point have come around to the "nothing's gonna happen, stop spending political capital on it" approach by now. This legislation is by one of the... quirkier members of Congress, with no cosponsors.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Fair enough. I'm not sure they had the same numbers in the House and Senate during those incidents. Although that is the only way I can see something like this passing.