Open Source Defense

Share this post
OSD 166: Court rulings matter, except when they don’t
opensourcedefense.substack.com

OSD 166: Court rulings matter, except when they don’t

The people’s court > the Supreme Court

Apr 25
2
Share this post
OSD 166: Court rulings matter, except when they don’t
opensourcedefense.substack.com

We got excited this week about this reasonable speculation that Justices Barrett and/or Thomas are in the majority on Bruen:

Twitter avatar for @cwdefllc𝘾-𝙒 𝘿𝙀𝙁𝙀𝙉𝙎𝙀 @cwdefllc
Barrett or Thomas has NYSRPA v. Bruen. I’m going Barrett. Thomas would flip the table on how 2A jurisprudence works and I doubt the Chief would want that.

April 21st 2022

3 Retweets6 Likes

Here’s why that’s likely the case:

Twitter avatar for @AaronTangLawAaron Tang @AaronTangLaw
@CounterApologis Sure! The Court hears arguments in 2-week sittings, and opinions are assigned to those cases after each sitting. The senior justices in the majority have a custom of ensuring that every justice, where possible, writes at least one majority opinion. /3

April 21st 2022

3 Likes
Twitter avatar for @AaronTangLawAaron Tang @AaronTangLaw
@CounterApologis Bruen (the gun case) was argued in November. It's the only case left from that sitting. And so far every justice except Thomas and Barrett has written an op from the Nov. sitting. So the strong likelihood is that one of them has it, since it is unlikely neither of them.. /3

April 21st 2022

2 Likes
Twitter avatar for @AaronTangLawAaron Tang @AaronTangLaw
@CounterApologis ... was assigned a single o from Nov, even as other colleagues got two opinions. [The exceptions to the 1-per-sitting rule are if a justice isn't healthy, or had a super busy prior sitting, or got assigned an op but changed their vote or lost the majority, see, e.g., Gundy] 3/3

April 21st 2022

1 Like

Tempting to start celebrating. But there are levels to this.

  • Level 1: 😢 five people in Washington aren’t saving gun rights

  • Level 2: 🥳 five people in Washington are saving gun rights

  • Level 3: 🤔 why should it matter what five people in Washington think?

In 2008, Heller moved things from Level 1 to Level 2. Yay, the Supreme Court was here to save the day. Systems thinkers might have contemplated Level 3 just as a fun intellectual exercise. But the 14 years since then have highlighted something else:

  • Level 4: 🙃 wait, does it matter what five people in Washington think?

Heller stopped Washington, D.C. from imposing an outright ban on handguns. Two years later, in 2010, McDonald v. Chicago did the same in Chicago. Those two landmark Second Amendment rulings drove the repeal of two handgun bans and then went on to achieve … pretty much nothing else.

(D.C. got shall-issue carry because of a D.C. Circuit ruling based on Heller, and in a roundabout way the Seventh Circuit did the same in Illinois. But that’s it.)

It’s easy to point to moments where the Supreme Court spectacularly discarded people’s rights — Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, Wickard v. Filburn, Korematsu v. U.S., etc. etc. — as the thing that allowed a terrible chain of events. But did they allow the events, or were they caused by those same events? In the case of, say, Korematsu, you had a country that was willing to force everyone on the west coast with Japanese ancestry into camps. Would that country have been stopped by a Supreme Court that in the midst of it all piped up to say, “Hey everyone, you can’t imprison people for being Japanese, ok?” And more to the point, would such an environment produce a Supreme Court that would say that?

Conversely, and less famously, it’s also easy to find examples where the Supreme Court did stand up for people’s rights … and was ignored. Re Worcester v. Georgia, there’s the Andrew Jackson apocrypha that “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” In the 1950s and ‘60s, the Court’s school desegregation rulings would have been dead letters without the years of hands-on enforcement effort they were followed up with. And apart from the residents of D.C. and Chicago being able to own and carry handguns, Heller changed nothing on the ground for anybody’s gun rights.

And yet, gun rights have gotten stronger. In most of the country, they’re in much better shape today than they were in 2008. There’s a real possibility that Bruen makes shall-issue the law of the land in the next two months. But that’s on the back of a successful multi-decade effort to liberalize carry laws state by state. If 42 states were still may-issue, as they were in the ‘80s, Bruen would be a pipe dream.

But the cultural groundwork still matters more than the law. Think ahead. Suppose in a few weeks, Clarence Thomas writes a barnburner majority opinion in Bruen. Shall-issue is the law of the land. Yay.

But is it the law in practice? Some states will just go with it. But others are going to Rube Goldberg their way out of this. “Sure, you can get a carry permit. The application costs $340, plus another $88.25 for fingerprints [1]. You have to interview in person. Appointments are available from 9-9:30am on the third Monday of every month. You also can’t carry in bars, restaurants, event venues, or on public transport.”

What really keeps gun rights healthy isn’t a court coming in to save the day at the last second. It’s people liking gun rights to the point that the question never needs to go to court.

The Supreme Court can help around the edges. But it has never demonstrated an ability to turn a popular tide. It ratifies what’s coming anyway. Either the Court gets on board, or people keep trying until it agrees with them.

And in a sense, good. If you were worried about what five people in Washington think, don’t be. The good news is that in practice, they can’t tell people what to do. They can just say what people were going to do anyway.

—

[1] This is the actual current cost of a license to possess a handgun in your home in New York City.


This week’s links

Surgeon reacts to Garand Thumb’s “.22 vs human head” video

Breakdown from Dr. Chris Raynor.

Anti-violence program based around cognitive behavioral therapy showing promising results in Chicago

The recently completed trial tracked some 2,500 men in Chicago’s most violent neighborhoods and found that men who participated in an intensive, 18-month program called READI Chicago were nearly two-thirds less likely to be arrested for a shooting or homicide and nearly 20% less likely to be shot or killed themselves than a similar group of men that weren’t in the program. Those are all significant declines considering a third of participants had been shot at least once before enrolling, and had an average of 17 arrests on their rap sheet.


OSD office hours

If you’re a new gun owner, thinking about becoming one, or know someone who is, come to OSD office hours. It’s a free 30-minute video call with an OSD team member to ask any and all your questions.

Book an office hours time


Support

Like what we’re doing? You can support us at the link below.

Support


Merch

And the best kind of support is to rock our merch and spread the word. Top-quality hats, t-shirts, and patches with a subtle OSD flair. Even a gallery-quality print to hang on the wall.

Order merch

Share this post
OSD 166: Court rulings matter, except when they don’t
opensourcedefense.substack.com
Comments

Create your profile

0 subscriptions will be displayed on your profile (edit)

Skip for now

Only paid subscribers can comment on this post

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

Check your email

For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.

Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.

TopNewCommunity

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2022 Open Source Defense
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Publish on Substack Get the app
Substack is the home for great writing