If you dont read anything else today, go read this.
Yet, notice the pertinent language of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In stark contrast to the Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment does not say gun rights “shall not be unreasonably infringed.” Reasonableness has nothing to do with the matter, nor does crisis management. How could they? The Second Amendment aims to maintain the people’s power of self-defense, including against the government. Since that is the point of the right, nothing could be more unreasonable than to allow its restriction by the government.
Chuck Schumer wants govt to have “emergency powers” over the 2nd amendment via use of the 4th amendment that allows for you to not need a warrant during an ’emergency’.
I think his legal argument here is ridiculous. Even if he got his way this would only lead to enforcement in a very, very limited time frame… i.e. a traffic stop where an officer disarms you or an arrest where you must be brought before a court within 48 hrs.
Rather, I think this is an effort to re-frame the debate. An effort to bring into the conversation the phrase of ‘Emergency powers’ with the end goal being convincing the masses of the idea that the President can use “emergency powers” coupled with the “epidemic” of gun violence that is now a “public health crisis” to erase the right to keep and bear arms.
These are dangerous times.