How does Congress expect to pass legislation like this when there is a 6-3 conservative judge majority who will almost certainly defend maximalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment?
> How does Congress expect to pass legislation like this when there is a 6-3 conservative judge majority who will almost certainly defend maximalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment?
(1) The Supreme Court has no role in whether legislation passes.
(2) “A member of Congress, as sole sponsor with no cosponsors, introduces a bill” isn't evidence that Congress, as a whole, thinks anything positive about the subject matter, political prospects, or, were it to pass, post-adoption legal prospects of the bill.
I understand that, I was a step ahead of myself in my mind. My question is better phrased as: why write legislation at all if you think the Supreme Court would very likely strike it down were it passed? What is the point of this effort?
Posturing, advertising, showing that you are doing something and it's everyone else standing in your way. Of course, that's only weakly grounded in reality, but maybe still worth doing from an electoral standpoint.
On a more credulous note, it may also be valuable from a deliberative perspective to have these discussions in the body even if they don't result in change in the short term. That's undermined by the fact that the chamber is often pretty empty during debate, and that members of congress (and their staffs) can talk outside of the chamber, but it may still have an element of truth to it.
Good point, we aren't generally allowed to own RPGs and attack helicopters, so it's not maximalist. However, RPGs and helicopters were not around at the time of the passing of the amendment, so I'm not sure we can that it is historically and textually accurate. For that matter, the guns this legislation would target weren't around then either, so I'm not sure how useful that criteria really is.
Because there was essentially nothing in between 1789 and the rise of the modern "gun rights" movement starting in the 80s to support it. The current interpretation would have been completely preposterous in the 60s and 70s. Just see how gun laws were used against the Black Panthers in the 60s.
If I had to guess, I'd say they could wait for the next highly publicized shooting event. A compliant media will create hysteria as always. Aside from partisan concerns, fear drives media engagement. It isn't hard to imagine how such a scenario could be leveraged to get a bill like this passed.
If the courts strike it down later, they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.
No meaningful gun control came about after Sandy Hook (where someone took out an entire classroom of first graders) nor Las Vegas (where one man shot 411 people).
I think most of the Democrats at this point have come around to the "nothing's gonna happen, stop spending political capital on it" approach by now. This legislation is by one of the... quirkier members of Congress, with no cosponsors.
(1) The Supreme Court has no role in whether legislation passes.
(2) “A member of Congress, as sole sponsor with no cosponsors, introduces a bill” isn't evidence that Congress, as a whole, thinks anything positive about the subject matter, political prospects, or, were it to pass, post-adoption legal prospects of the bill.