After a brief hiatus, “Well Regulated” will now be published every Monday at thecornellreview.org featuring discussion of recent developments in the battle for gun rights, as well as analysis of more abstract topics central to defending the Second Amendment.
This edition details the legal battle in Duncan v. Becerra (the case regarding California’s ban on “high capacity magazines”) and the literal battle in Kenosha, Wisconsin where a 17-year-old fought for his life and won. In America, we defend our rights in courts and in the “public square” so that we do not have to use violence to achieve political ends. However, there are some who are not content with trying to advance their ideologies just in the legal system or through legislation. An increasing number of those on the American left are no longer satisfied to drown this country in burdensome and oppressive legislation. Instead, they are seeking to achieve their ends by any means necessary, no matter how violent. In recent months, politically motivated violence has worsened, with left-wing mobs attacking and harassing anyone who does not fall in line. When a mass of violent extremists closes in on you, intent on taking your life, it is only the arms that you keep and bear which can save you.
Duncan v. Becerra
On August 28, California Attorney General Becerra filed for an en banc hearing in the Ninth Circuit on the constitutionality of a ban on “high capacity magazines”. This decision is the latest in a long effort by the state of California to maintain its ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds. Anyone active in the firearms community will remember “Freedom Week”, the period between March 29 and April 5 when Californians were able to legally acquire standard capacity magazines. “Freedom Week” was put to an end by Judge Benitez who ordered a stay so as to protect Californians who had already purchased magazines during an appeal. Becerra was granted a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit who, on August 14, upheld Judge Benitez’s decision. If the law is declared unconstitutional in the Ninth Circuit during the en banc, this would likely have major implications for the gun-rights movement.
However, it is unlikely that this case will have a satisfying conclusion anytime soon. Given the importance of a ban on standard capacity magazines being declared unconstitutional, it remains very likely that the case will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court. This is concerning given SCOTUS’s recent refusal to hear Second Amendment related cases. Most attribute the conservatives’ refusal to hear gun rights cases to the unreliability of Justice Roberts to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. The passionate dissent given in the issue of mootness in NYSRPA v. NYC (as well as Justice Kavanaugh’s reason for concurrence) and Thomas’ own history of support for the Second Amendment further support to the belief that the main impediment to the Supreme Court finally taking a stand on gun rights, after over a decade of silence, is Justice Roberts. If gun rights cases are not challenged in court, then the politicians who are infringing on our rights win; but if these cases are allowed to die in the courts, then that is just as much of a victory for anti-gun politicians. Only clear and definitive victories that are consistently and constantly upheld by the lower courts can maintain our rights against those who are working to take them away.
“Kenosha Kyle”
On August 25, Kyle Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin in response to the riots described by CNN as “fiery but mostly peaceful”. Two days later, he was charged with several crimes, the most severe of which is intentional homicide and is now facing the possibility of a life sentence in prison. During the riots, Rittenhouse was attacked several times, killing two people and shooting one in the arm with his Smith & Wesson M&P-15 Sport II. The Cornell Review’s own Roland Molina has published a more detailed synopsis of the incident, and a compilation of several videos of what happened is included below (warning: video includes graphic content). Given the wealth of evidence showing exactly what happened that night, now it is crucial to ask what we can learn from this shooting and its aftermath.
Warning: The following video has graphic content.
My immediate impression from watching the video of what happened was how Rittenhouse maintained his control over the weapon and didn’t fire until it was absolutely necessary. He had excellent trigger discipline and avoided pointing his rifle at anyone until it was necessary – which further demonstrates that he was not a murderous psychopath out on a killing spree. It also should be noted that one of his attackers utilized a skateboard, similar to the rioter who attacked Steve Baca in Albuquerque, New Mexico earlier this year. Heavy, blunt, everyday objects that might not immediately appear to be weapons are growing in popularity amongst left-wing mobs. This is not to say that every skateboarder is a potential terrorist, merely to remind that if someone is carrying one in an escalating protest or riot, they may be a greater potential threat.
As for the aftermath, since the shooting is has come to light that the men who Rittenhouse shot were criminals, including one convicted pedophile, who was recorded before the incident yelling “Shoot me n***a!” It is certainly unsurprising that men with a history of crime were found in a violent mob attacking people, for years, gun rights advocates have said that dangerous people will find a way to acquire weapons and will use them for nefarious purposes. Criminals do not care about the law, and bans on possession or carry of firearms will do nothing but ensure that the next Kyle Rittenhouse will end up dead in the street – a victim of mob violence.
Unfortunately, it seems that many on the left would like nothing more than to see people like Rittenhouse overtaken by mobs. One such prominent voice is a communist by the name of Vaush who in a recent debate essentially said that Kyle Rittenhouse should have simply surrendered to his attackers. Vaush’s opinion is not a fringe either, as countless individuals have condemned this act of self-defense just like so many others before. Whether it be Steve Baca, the McCloskeys, or Kyle Rittenhouse, the American left refuses to acknowledge justified self-defense as long as those defending themselves can be framed as “evil, far-right, agitators” or the like.
Gun Owners of America are supporting Rittenhouse’s defense team with their own extensive legal resources while the NRA has not given any legal aid or even voiced support for Rittenhouse. What does it say to remain silent when the act of self-preservation – a basic and fundamental liberty – is castigated? When we will not even defend our core principles, then we will have truly lost the fight for America’s soul and her future.
EDIT: It has come to our attention that one of the statements in this article was inaccurate, and has since been corrected.
