In an article ostensibly written to provide an overview of the Supreme Court’s upcoming AR-15 ruling, the New Republic claimed that the idea that citizens are armed to fight tyranny is a “pop constitutional concept.”
\n\nTitled, “The Mother of All Assault Weapons Cases is Coming,” the article zeroes in on a brief filed by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) which contends that the Second Amendment is in place for “deterring tyranny.”
\n\nThe New Republic noted that NAGR contends that “the constitutional check on tyranny” provided by an armed citizenry “is not obsolete” but may become so if the government is allowed to “ban the arms that make it credible.”
\n\nMatt Ford, author at the New Republic, responded to NAGR’s claims by noting, “I have written before on this pop constitutional concept, which is essentially a purported Second Amendment right to murder civil servants and assassinate elected officials.”
\n\nThis principle also runs counter to other Second Amendment precedents that emphasize how the right to bear arms only extends to lawful purposes. The lawful-purposes framing can itself be slippery—a constitutional right conditioned on statutory lawfulness is a half-right at best—but is even trickier if imposed as a defense against tyranny.
Original source: https://breitbart.com/
Leave a Reply