• PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.

    There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.

    The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.

    It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.

    The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.

    • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, that’s a nice wall of text, but it isn’t going to make this order any more constitutional. Law enforcement isn’t enforcing it, and the state AG isn’t even defending it apparently.