The other day, I posted about an
Orlando Sentinel headline that was an outright lie--a fabrication made up by the editors that was totally unsupported by the facts. Unfortunately, we've come to expect this from the anti-armed citizen coalition, and even rely on it as a way to demonstrate truth is on our side.
That's why we need to be better than them. We need to be relentless in presenting fact to support our opinions, and we need to be above-board and honest doing it. That has always been our strength, and our enemies' weakness.
So what the hell is this?
San Francisco Superior Court Rejects Gun Ban; 2nd Amendment Upheld
No it was not either. As I started to say
in a discussion over at Nicki's:
The case was not challenged on 2A grounds--it was challenged on preemption grounds.
That's because a 2A challenge wouldn't have worked--both the CA Supreme Court AND the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals do not recognize 2A as an individual right.
The only hope of overturning this in the courts is for SCOTUS to do so. But to date, the high court has refused to tackle this issue.
So in short, it was a matter of expedience.
Mind you, I'm not endorsing this tactic--I think while we're dancing around congratulating ourselves on a victory we are ignoring hidden costs and implications at our peril--but in a nutshell, a 2A challenge will never prevail in California until a higher decision forces it.
Even though I would prefer an outright Second Amendment-based resolution, I'd expect the high court to duck facing one if it came before them, as they did in
Silveira. They clearly don't want to resolve this, as evidenced by their willful refusal to resolve opposing precedents between the
5th and
9th Circuits. So had a challenge been made on 2A grounds, the SF handgun ban would have been upheld in the lower courts, and SCOTUS would have probably refused to involve themselves.
Still, I mentioned costs and implications, and those are simple, really: we can debate over preferring state preemption vs a patchwork quilt of local gun bans, and on the surface, the former seems the lesser of two evils, less burdensome and more pragmatic. Of course, when you believe that rights are unalienable, and that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," all such edicts are repugnant and insulting to free sovereign individuals.
Just don't forget that relying on preemption on matters of Constitutional rights bolsters its perceived supremacy and legitimacy. So if the state decides
No Guns Allowed, well then, no guns will be allowed. The ruling judge practically said as much.
But back to the reason for this post: None of this gives NRA a pass for deceiving gun owners and its membership with such carefully crafted falsehoods. We deserve better than this from them.
What we should ask ourselves when such deception is exposed is where else are they misleading us? And if they do so here, how can we know
when to believe them?
