[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[claytoneast]

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?

[dllthomas]

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.

It's discussed a bit here: https://theconstitutionalist.org/2021/01/27/from-insincere-v...

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.