File not found: M:/Liberty.exe
- Dec 23, 2012
In all honesty: the original SB281 would have been a lot easier to challenge in the courts, but we can't really look into an alternate universe here. If the courts wouldn't have been involved: we'd be stuck with thicker, more annoying bans. But then again: the oppression of the Democrats would have turned some to vote otherwise and potentially undo parts of that bill. The work we did made it more workable - but it also made it harder to remove.How would that strategy have worked out in 2013 when we were fighting it out with the AWB?
The difference here is that Bruen clearly defines a right to bear arms beyond the house. They are ignoring that ruling, so let them get bit by the courts. There were and are no real SCOTUS protections for assault weapons - but a more-infringing bill would be more likely to be addressed quickly and decisively by the courts. The same goes here for the right to bear arms.
I encourage Mark Pennak to do his due diligence in telling the legislators that he will sue them and that he will win. I encourage us to continue funding that effort: MSI does amazing and great work. It seems that a few Senators understand and respect Mark and his approach.
However, I think it is bad form for us to detail every problem in the bill that makes it impossible to comply so that they can fix it. Trust me: they're here browsing and learning how to improve their bills so they stay in line with the courts. Don't do their heavy lifting for them.