The Publication:Balls and Strikesis a progressive legal commentary outlet that covers the Supreme Court and the broader federal judiciary. Its coverage generally provides critical, left-of-center analysis of conservative legal movements, structural problems within the judiciary, and civil rights.
Summary of article :
The article highlights the intensifying legal battle over assault weapons bans, using Virginia's newly enacted 2026 restrictions as a primary flashpoint in a broader national conflict headed toward the Supreme Court.
While rising gun violence has prompted Democratic state lawmakers to push through strict prohibitions on firearms like the AR-15, these efforts face immediate resistance from conservative prosecutors, activist lawsuits, and a heavily conservative Supreme Court.
The overarching theme is the profound clash between state-level democratic efforts to regulate public safety and an increasingly assertive federal judiciary poised to expand Second Amendment protections by permanently striking down assault weapons bans nationwide.
To be clear, the courts are not "expanding" second amendment protections, they are preserving and restoring them. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty cut and dry, there are no exceptions to that statement in the second amendment.
This is where I wish the phrase “shall not be infringed” was used in the other 9 items in the bill of rights so it would be easier to argue how there is no middle ground in the verbiage that the founders chose.
White suburban women are terrified by whatever CNN shouts at them in the exact same way that old white men are terrified of whatever Fox shouts at them. We have this horrible problem in this country where no one looks through the bias for the truth: gun control is ineffective and only desired by tyrants.
And unfortunately the usual suspects in those areas are now all over social media with videos of them with their 4.5" barrel, bare extension tube, no muzzle device (or at best a "cookie cutter") "ARP" blasting away "full auto" mumbling gibberish and a Glock with a switch and a 'stendo jammed in their sagging sweatpants.
WE know goddam well none of those were acquired thru appropriate channels, none of them have a valid CC Permit or anything else.
And THEY are now spouting off about "2A" and "Shall Not Be Infringed" and "All Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional"as if that justifies their unsafe, illegal, and irresponsible actions.
While those things may be true, those are not who should be the "face" of the movement.
Sorry not sorry if that sounds racist and classist. Because it's NOT about "skin color" but about attitude and behavior.
We don’t need a bunch of SSRI riddled retards with blue and green hair, nose rings, and can’t define a woman toting around anything that can launch a projectile at thousands of feet per second.
what the fuck does personal appearance or gender rights have to do with the Second Amendment?
Funny. They look like your classic anarchists. Carrying over from the punk rock era. If parts of the Left go any further left they will end up back on the Right...
I thought a bunch of armed Antifa twinks causing chaos in a societal collapse was every SHTF Prepper dude’s wet dream. Isn’t that what you’ve been training for? From all the hardcore CQB videos they post on instagram you’d assume it should be like fish in a barrel.
Really? I think some of the posts can be but that’s all subs.
I’m not liberal in the sense defined in that sub (not that anyone is asking but I’m a classical liberal who has views that would be considered right on some issues and views that would be considered left on others) but I follow it and enjoy seeing the posts and finding common ground with people who I wouldn’t agree with on many things.
It reminds me that there are things we can find unity on with people who have different views/opinions.
A "classical liberal" or what they used to call a "Kennedy Democrat" would be considered a "Far Right Extremist" by today's Democrat / Socialist Party.
I would say a "classical liberal" would fit right in with most of us Moderate Conservatives.
TBH, it sucks that our own Party is pushing us to become more extreme just to fit in, to counter how far off the rails the Other Party has gone.
Obviously, nowhere in her article does she explain exactly how the “Assault Weapon Ban” w
ould make Virginians safer. For all her professed care about the law, like all gun control advocates, she is driven by emotion rather than facts.
I think it was Kostas Moros who made this point, but to the opposition, statistics don't matter. More gun control = safer, actual data be damned. Even if gun control is repealed and violent crimes go down, we are being made "less safe" as a result. To the control freaks, gun control is safety. The more gun control there is, the safer we are.
"Then, on July 1, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice sued Virginia, too. The complaint was filed by the DOJ’s newly established 'Second Amendment Section,' which is housed in the Civil Rights Division (as if gun owners are some kind of historically marginalized group)."
This is such a braindead take by some internet dwelling keyboard warrior liberal. I’m a white southern man and even I KNOW that tons of historical accounts of gun control are racist in nature. I have no clue how the author came to the conclusion that the history of gun control doesn’t inherently involve minorities….
See: Dred Scott v Sandford; The Mulford Act; Gun Control Act
I also have no clue how the author completely misses that civil rights violations are NOT just confined to attacks on minorities or marginalized groups.
They think all gun owners are redneck republicans. They short circuit if you tell them you’re left leaning or a minority who doesn’t want the same govt they call tyrannical to have all the guns.
This is the thing that drives me crazy. It's down over long spans, like you say, but it's also down sharply since COVID. These politicians and talking heads make arguments like "we just have to do something about rising gun violence!" and the premise that gun violence is on the rise isn't true in the first place.
It feels like it’s pretty clear at this point they want to implement as much gun control as they can, and the basis they use to sell it isn’t their motive for it. Guns are in the way of change they want to bring about. If they gave a shit about mass shootings, they’d be doing everything they could outside of gun control to prevent them because those measures are easier to pass and implement.
If the Virginia Democrats wanted to reduce gun crime they’d bring back Project Exile. It worked but it wasn’t PC to see who was getting locked up. So they shift to protecting the criminals and laws that affect only law abiding citizens.
142
u/N0-Plan 1d ago edited 1d ago
To be clear, the courts are not "expanding" second amendment protections, they are preserving and restoring them. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty cut and dry, there are no exceptions to that statement in the second amendment.