[T]he Supreme Court has just denied cert in a case where the solicitor general of the United States under Donald Trump actually wanted the court to take it. This is huge great news folks because it is signaling that the Supreme Court is done with criminals defending the right to keep and bear arms and much more likely to let law-abiding ordinary citizens vindicate their rights. This is a big deal, folks, because as you know, those 18 USC 922G cases are problematic because their bad facts make bad law. [Watch]
I’m more concerned with the fact that the SG knows that and proceeded anyway. After all, didn’t NSSF tell us, “USA Today and gun control groups [were] in a tizzy [because] U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote, ‘The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment…'”?
And Smith himself declares “Prosecutorial discretion has always been a part of our legal system.”
So why does this seem to be a tradition with “pro-gun”Republican administrations?
We condemn any program that involves enforcing unconstitutional “laws”, even if such “laws” are enforced only against violent criminals. Unconstitutional “laws” are illegal, harmful to public safety, tyrannical, and are inevitably enforced against ordinary, non-criminal citizens.
[Via Jess]