The Bruen decision means that even widely accepted and eminently sensible laws are suddenly suspect. Take, for example, the federal mandate that bans the possession of guns without legible serial numbers, which help law enforcement solve crimes. A West Virginia judge determined the mandate was unconstitutional because there were no similar laws dating to the 18th century. (A federal judge disagreed and reinstated the law on appeal, but it may still end up at the Supreme Court.) More egregious still, a Texas judge struck down a so-called red flag law, writing that any law barring an individual who has been indicted but not convicted of a crime from obtaining a firearm does not “align” with “this Nation’s historical tradition.” The practical effect of his ruling is to keep guns in the hands of individuals with credible accusations of domestic abuse. (The Texas judge’s ruling has been appealed and will be heard by the Supreme Court later this year.)
As for gun laws that did exist before 1868, like some regulations in New York, Justice Thomas said we should ignore them as “outliers.” But lest anyone think assault rifles are in jeopardy because they were not legal in the 19th century—indeed, they did not exist—the justices in the Bruen majority would disabuse you of this notion. As Chip Brownlee writes in The Trace (a nonprofit website covering gun-related news), their reasoning is that the Second Amendment “protects weapons that are in ‘common use at the time,’” which is now arguably the case with assault rifles, since they “are among the best-selling guns in America.”
Have the justices in the Bruen majority noticed that a “common use” of assault rifles is perpetrating mass shootings? Do they care? Until recently, the Supreme Court would take into account the public health impact of gun laws, but no longer. Now it insists on an arbitrary reading of history—and the majority seem not to care whether we end up with a gun in everyone’s hands, throughout the public realm. They are pouring gasoline on the fire of a public health catastrophe. …
Once gone, the rule of law is painfully hard to resurrect or institute. Consider the many countries that are mired in corruption, gripped by organized crime, suffering constant public violence or in the midst of civil war. Life becomes nearly impossible there, and it is hard to climb out of this mess when law is not respected. By recklessly empowering gun owners, our legislators undermine rule of law, pushing us into the ranks of lawless nations.
Christian charity is increasingly impracticable in this lawless state. Who is willing to reach out to strangers, lest we seem threatening and be shot? We are forced to look at strangers in a different light; we are forced to fear them.
The flood of guns and permissive laws ensure that many retreat, fortify themselves and seal themselves off from one another. This is no way to live. We are effectively deconstructing society, and all the good it enables, the life it sustains.
Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York is correct when he argues that “gun control is pro-life.” His colleagues must join him and denounce our reckless gun culture with the same vigor they devote to abortion.
— Firmin DeBrabander in The Bishops Must Denounce Our Reckless Gun Culture With the Same Urgency as Abortion
