MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL Who’s the dumbest one of all?
I never expect much sense from victim-disarmers, but the CT Mirror’s Mark Robinson may have set a new low bar.

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that
Let’s not buy into misconceptions about the 2nd Amendment when advancing Gov. Lamont’s gun control proposals.

What might those misconceptions be?

Public perception and debate only changed a little more than a generation ago. Until recently, this has been the overwhelming consensus among Americans and in the courts. Ever since the aftermath of the War of 1812 (when veterans returned home from war with their firearms) the federal government has regulated and restricted the right to bear arms, and did so without political controversy.

According to “A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control,” by Saul Cornell and Nathan DeDino, during the decades after the Revolutionary War, the sale of firearms was forbidden to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans.

He went there: Gun control is good because there is no individual right to arms, and we used to disarm Catholics, slave, and Indians.

Holy s[…].

Say… since slavery was legal then, does he want to re-institute that as well?

Moving on.

In U.S. v Miller in 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the National Firearms Act, (which was passed after the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre). In that case, the Court ruled unanimously that the 2nd Amendment pertains to militias and not to individual rights.

Aside from the chronological error (MILLER was 1939, which gives you an idea of how well Robinson studied this issue), MILLER was about the status of the defendant’s sawed-off shotgun, not individual RKBA. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear militarily useful arms, and that no evidence was presented showing that the military used short-barreled shotguns; thus, registration of a non-militarily useful arm could be required. No such evidence was presented because the defendant had died, and with no one to pay their bills, his attorneys didn’t show up to argue the case. (And keep that “militarily useful part in mind.)

But in 2008, in District of Columbia v Heller, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, ruling that the 2nd Amendment did create an individual right to bear arms. That is – literally – the first time the high court took this position.

No. The Court found that the Second Amendment protects a preexisting right.

Nor was this the first time that SCOTUS had found the Second to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has ruled that way since at least 1857 (hint: SCOTUS ruled against Dred Scott because if he was a free man, he would have a right to bear arms just like anyone else). If Robinson had bother reading the HELLER decision, he might have noticed that Scalia cited numerous prior precedents for an individual right.

Robinson has a little list of further infringements that he wants CT Governor Lamont to impose.

Close the loopholes in assault weapons laws

Remember that “militarily useful” part of MILLER? If “assault weapons” are nasty, military-style arms, then MILLER (and HELLER) already found that we have an individual right to them. Shall we go there; in court, I mean?

Make domestic violence convictions an automatic disqualifier for obtaining a gun permit

Well, that seems a little redundant, since a domestic violence conviction already makes possession of a firearm a crime. Doubly redundant since CGS § 29-28(b) also mentions that no permit may be issued to anyone prohibited under 18 USC 922.

Perhaps Robinson could spend some time perusing Connecticut General Statutes regarding firearms. Our Gun Culture Primer might help, too.

Until then, he should keep his mouth shut and avoiding proving himself an ignorant fool.