The constitutional scholars at the Brady campaign are famous for claiming that the Second Amendment doesn’t really say what it says. That it doesn’t give Americans the right to keep and bear. That the access to arms belongs solely to the militia, which they read as the gummint. Now, though, they’re using the 2A itself to attack civilian gun ownership from another angle. abcnews.com reports that, “A group that supports gun control filed suit Thursday against a north Georgia town that recently passed a law requiring gun ownership that it said is mostly symbolic…The suit contends the Second Amendment doesn’t require anyone to have a gun, and government cannot require citizens to arm themselves.” Which, when you think about it, sounds about right, right? The government can’t force individuals to buy something they don’t want, can they? . . .
‘Cause that would seem to be some kind of individual mandate. Or a tax. But if you ask the Chief Justice, that appears to be just fine. An affront to personal freedom and individual choice? You betcha. But at least as far as the SCOTUS is concerned, Constitutionally permissible. Not that that argument has anything at all to do with the Bradys’ objections to the Georgia town’s new law.
“Forcing residents to buy guns they do not want or need won’t make the city of Nelson or its people any safer, and only serves to increase gun sales and gun industry profits,” Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center said in a statement.
Ah. So it’s the profit motive that the Brady Campaign really objects to.
Supporters of the law said they wanted to make a statement about gun rights at a time when President Barack Obama and others were seeking restrictions after the shooting that killed 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Connecticut in December.
The proposed ordinance is similar to a law that passed in Kennesaw in 1982 and other towns in the U.S. have considered such measures.
While we’re not attorneys, it seems at least plausible that government’s commandment that citizens buy health insurance could be the basis on which the City of Nelson defends the law from the Brady’s campaign’s attempt to nix their gun mandate. So if, in fact, it plays out that way, the Brady Bunch will have their benefactors in the Congressional Civilian Disarmament Caucus and the POTUS himself to thank.
That little click you just heard is our irony meter…pegged at eleven.