Podcast: Play in new window
I am not a political blog or podcast, so I typically stay well away from the topic. That said, I also realize that participating in and advocating for positive “gun culture” is an inherently political activity to begin with- so the topic of politics is not entirely avoidable. I first started drafting the idea of this post in the wake of the first assassination attempt on President Trump during the campaigns, then left it to rot. Interest picked up again after some more high profile shootings, and I convinced myself to keep sitting on it. Well, now that the election is over I think there’s a clearer path for what’s to come in the next several months and years.
To start off, I reiterate that this is not a political post. I’m not going to discuss the reasonings for who won and lost the election. Rather, I’m focusing on what’s been happening in the gun control sphere over the last several years, where the momentum seems to be going, and what I expect to happen soon.
A Pinch of History
I’ve been involved in debating gun control in some capacity since about 2007. That’s before I was even seriously into shooting, and at the time I considered myself someone who was interested in guns but not really an enthusiast. Still, I spent many hours going back and forth on various forums and social media of the time (which, at that time, was MySpace). Honing my arguments there, when I started getting much more serious around 2010-2011, it was just in time for the debate to dramatically pick up at the end of 2012 when Sandy Hook happened and we all thought there was going to be a dramatic push for more gun control in President Obama’s second term. Frankly, I lost a lot of [casual] friends during that time when they realized I was on the other side of the issue from them and didn’t just nod along in agreement and actively pointed out the flaws in their thinking.
I kept that momentum up for a few years. Through all of it, I saw the cycles of arguments that would gain popularity and then fall to the wayside (on both sides). I knew the core tenets of the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions- and pointed out every time they were getting twisted by the other side.
The most common examples of that twisting, by the way, are muddying of the “dangerous and unusual” standard to instead be “dangerous or unusual” as well as “commonly owned for lawful purposes” getting twisted to “commonly used for self defense.”
While my enthusiasm for the debate diminished over time, I still find myself sometimes wading into the fray over on Reddit. I’d say that I’ve got a really good track record there of winning debates in the eyes of the audience, even if the discussion usually ends with the other side hurling insults at me rather than arguing the points.
In any case, I just wanted you to know that I’ve been around for a while and have a long memory on this.
The [Coming] End of Hardware Restrictions
Since Heller and McDonald, we’ve also gotten the Bruen case through SCOTUS. My understanding is that Bruen didn’t actually say anything new, but it put a serious exclamation point on the Heller opinion. A bit like SCOTUS saying, “Did I stutter?” It forcefully laid out the standard of review for how second amendment cases needed to be reviewed, and I think it was very clear about that even if lower courts in anti-gun districts still try quibbling over it.
In my view, they only quibble over Bruen being “vague” because they know that applying the standard as written to their pet laws would make their laws unconstitutional.
What I see happening now is a bit of a cultural divide where the traditional anti-2A courts like the 9th, 7th, and 4th circuits continue to hem and haw while stalling on releasing any decisions that could wind back up at SCOTUS. There are glimmers of hope in there, like Judge Roger Benitez’s decision on California’s Assaults Weapons Ban, or Judge Stephen McGlynn’s 168-page opinion knocking down Illinois’s AWB just last week. On the other side, courts continue knocking down laws like restrictions against citizens younger than 21 buying handguns, or slapping the ATF down about their rules regarding bump stocks and pistol braces.
As I write this, the 4th circuit didn’t pull the same stalling tactics as the 9th or 7th, and made a final judgement in favor of Maryland’s AWB. that case is now heading for SCOTUS, and hopefully the pick it up. If they don’t, then there’s still the California and Illinois cases.
Momentum is in our favor
When you look at the big picture of Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and the cases bubbling up since then- it all tells a story. The gun control lobby is in retreat. While they get a win here and there in their districts, all signs point to eventually losing at the higher courts due to being forced to reckon with the fact that gun control as we know it today is a 20th century concept that’s incompatible with the text, history, and tradition of Constitutional rights.
On top of that, my perception is that in the years since President Trump’s first term, we’ve seen a huge increase in the number of first time gun owners across a wide spectrum of demographics and political affiliations. Whether the political left started arming up out of fear from Trump’s “Right Wing Death Squads” that never manifested, or what they saw happening in their neighborhoods during the Covid lockdowns and Summer of Love, there are many people who now realize they were lied to about guns and gun ownership.
I’ve always felt that the biggest antidote to anti-gun antics was simple education and experience. There are exceptions, but it’s always seemed to me that teaching someone some gun safety rules, a bit of marksmanship, and letting them actually experience the things they were ignorant about tends to soften their opinions a lot.
You should take it as a sign that momentum is in your favor when the Democratic Party’s candidate had to make a point to say they are a gun owner, and explicitly mentioned Glock as their tool of self defense. The very gun demonized for years when banning handguns was a priority for the lobbyists. To me, this indicates that even the Democratic Party knows they can’t take such a hardline stance as they used to- even if their big doners want it.
So About that Hardware…
With President Trump going back to the White House, he’s likely to appoint two justices to replace retiring conservative ones (Thomas and Alito, who I expect to retire after [hopefully] smashing Maryland’s AWB). He may even get a crack at a third one, depending on Justice Sotomayor’s health for the next few years. This will secure a conservative majority on SCOTUS for decades.
Taken together, I think we’re going to see the systematic destruction of hardware-focused gun control policies. Assault weapons bans and magazine restrictions are the most obvious targets. The next target should be the “sporting purposes” clause of the 1968 Gun Control Act, needlessly used and abused to limit what imported firearms American’s can purchase. Then, the golden prize, is going after the 1934 NFA all together by at least removing suppressors and short barreled rifles/shotguns from those restrictions.
I see this as an absolute win.
But it’s not All Sunshine and Rainbows
Despite my optimism around gun control’s impending failure to enforce hardware bans, I don’t think the debate ends there. What I expect is a pivot away from trying to ban things and instead focus on gun owners themselves.
In other words, if they can’t limit choices on what you can buy, then they’re going to try and put limits on who can buy anything.
Why do I think this? In the big picture, when you look how polling works around gun control issues, there are things that almost everyone generally agrees upon. The two obvious examples are no firearms for violent felons, and removing access from the mentally disturbed. Even the pro-gun side of the aisle generally agrees with these two points, going so far as to use them as shields when hardware debates come up.
“We don’t have an AR-15 problem, we have a mental health problem!” – Generic 2A advocate
I don’t think anyone is seriously challenging the questions on a Form 4473 regarding drug use, either.
On top of that, I think the gun control crowd has some moderate successes with so-called Red Flag Laws. These things have sprung up all over the country in varying flavors, and none of them have seen significant legal challenges. Sure, there’s been issues with the implementation of the laws- particularly around due process requirements and the timelines of returning firearms to rightful owners. Overall, though, I think the people accept the premise of these laws as being valid.
What to Watch For
Given the public’s (and court’s) acceptance of “who” controls so far, the thing to look out for is a gradual shifting of the line of “who qualifies.” We’re seeing some of that play out now with cases like Rahimi and Range. The courts are looking to draw a line between any felon and dangerous felons. I think we’ll see the same thing play out in the future with a creeping line of “red flaggable” offenses.
The other thing to look out for is licensure laws. I would really not be surprised at all if someone proposes a type of national firearms ownership ID, much like Illinois. So far nobody has successfully challenged that law. At a federal level, there is plenty of precedence that gun owners would even go for it if they felt like they got something out of it- like easy access to NFA items. Look how many people stormed the NFA gates to register SBRs and suppressors so far, especially when the wait times dropped from almost a year to just a few days.
Here’s how this could play out. Someone offers a law that simplifies the current rat’s nest into a few categories of firearms. Category I includes bolt action, lever action, and pump action long guns as well as revolvers. These would follow the same rules as today. Category II includes semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Category III includes today’s NFA items like suppressors, SBRs, and short barreled shotguns. Any citizen of age could purchase from Category I, but Category II and Category III would require a license from the government. Once you have the license, you can buy whatever you want by just presenting the license to the dealer at point of sale and they would validate it- no more 4473 or other forms to fill out.
On one hand, this whole idea might have a lot of merit and get people to go along with it because it’s simply convenient. On the other hand, it’s absolutely a registry and the requirements to obtain a license could creep over time, getting more and more restrictive to the point of impossibility.
In other words, even if something is well-meaning today, always consider how such a law could be twisted in the future to get used against you.
Wrapping Up
That’s about all I’ve got to say on this topic. I’m glad it seems like we’ve got a lot of positive momentum on the second amendment front. I hope we keep it going, and even take back ground we’ve lost over the decades. But stay vigilant! The next four years would be a great time to lull you into complacency.
Good summary article.
I apologize in advance for the length – had to make a point. Matt – I hear you. I agree that more and more (especially relatively new firearm owners who do not have rural and/or traditional roots) gun owners are much more willing to ‘comply’ to federal or state mandates set by ‘progressive zealots’ who hold no account to our Constitution. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ – Dec. of Ind. Greater words have never been written especially – ‘self evident’, ‘unalienable Rights’ and ‘Life’. I’m not a Declaration of Independence scholar but I know what those words mean and so do millions of other gun owners and most US Supreme Court Justices. ‘That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.’ – Dec. of Ind. We should also instinctively know the intention of those great words. Again highlighting – ‘Right of the People’, ‘alter or abolish’ and ‘Safety’. Without turning this into a ‘Constitutional Republic’ 101 class my point has been that there are a good percentage of American (gun owners) who believe they… Read more »
On the surface, Red Flag laws make sense. However, like so many “good intention” laws, there are unintended consequences. Red Flag laws are based on what the DSM considers potentially violent mental health conditions. The DSM is written and published by the American Psychiatric Association with no independent oversight as to the way they collect and interpret data used to categorize behavior, which is swayed by their ideologies at that time. Whoever controls the APA controls what is considered a mental health condition. Red Flag laws, like Asset Forfeiture laws, enable authorities to cite “err on the side of caution” as reason enough to violate a person’s civil rights with little to no due process and even less recourse to recover their property. Unless the Red Flag laws include guarantees about due process and property recovery, most folks will never see their seized firearms again even if proven they are not a threat to society or themselves. They won’t have the time or money to hire a lawyer, and police departments have a reputation (earned or not) for dragging their feet or “losing” property they don’t want to return. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter which political party is in control. Always remember:“Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good master, but they mean… Read more »
How would one prove a negative?
The big threat is gun-free zone expansion. The priority needs to be not only stopping that but rolling it back. The second biggest threat is the repeal of state exemption. Colorado has already done that. This leaves law abiding gun owners not having a clue whether they are in compliance or not.
Licensing will always be abused. Many countries in Europe, Canada and Australia all started off with “reasonable” licensing laws that inevitably morphed into tyrannical laws. Better to say who is prohibited and allow freedom to everyone else. Anything else will lead to disarmament.
We part ways on type of firearm into 3 categories. As a life-long (78 years so far) gun guy, and law enforcement officer, I’m a strict constitutionalist. Particularly the part about “…shall not be infringed.” Asking the government for permission to own a semi-auto firearm is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Not to mention establishing a federal firearms owner registry.
Hey Ron, I think you misunderstood. I’m not advocating for that, I’m saying that I could see someone proposing it as a “simplification” that sounds good in theory but comes with a ton of downsides and risks- like a registry. I’m warning readers to be cautious of these kinds of proposals.