A recent decision by the Supreme Court once again proves why we cannot trust the federal government to restrain itself and protect our right to keep and bear arms.
The SCOTUS declined to take up an Illinois case in which lower courts upheld a ban on assault weapons, claiming it was consistent with the Second Amendment. The case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, dealt with a local ordinance in Highland Park , that banned “assault weapons” which were defined in the ordinance as any “semi-automatic firearm that accepts large-capacity magazines and possesses a number of specialized features,” according to the Huffington Post.
Two of the justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, protested the decision by their colleagues.
The SCOTUS decision demonstrates once again that the feds won’t limit government. Even when they do occasionally side with the Constitution, such as when the court upheld the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, it only shows that the exception does not a rule make. And that case was 5-4, decided by a single vote, which means the next ruling may not be in our favor.
Also, we have to remember that the justices didn’t issue a ruling themselves, but allowed the lower court’s ruling to stand. While the local ordinance affects only a small number of people in comparison to the whole country, are we really going to trust the court to rule in favor of gun rights if Congress were to pass a law or the president issue an executive order attempting to ban the same weapon?
The best way to protect our right to keep and bear arms is to get cities, counties and states to pass Second Amendment Preservation Acts (SAPA). These laws, prohibiting local law enforcement agencies from enforcing any federal gun control, are in effect no matter who is elected to what office. We cannot rely on having the right people elected or appointed to an office. This is why Madison wisely advised Americans that a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” was the best strategy to protect their rights.