The U.S. Supreme Court is seen behind a fence who stands around the building on Thursday, May 5, 2022 in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

Rachel Weiner over at the Washington Post treats the ever-shrinking readership to over 2,000 words of demagoguery and deceit when it comes to her analysis of the Bruen decision. That’s right, she tells readers how the Supreme Court didn’t really mean what it wrote in Bruen. “The Supreme Court said it has been misunderstood,” she wrote.

Here’s the Democratic Party activist with a byline’s highly sensationalistic opening to her gaslighting extravaganza. Again from the WaPo and behind a paywall unless you’re on your phone:

Semiautomatic weapons. Large-capacity magazines. Guns with scratched-off serial numbers. Ghost guns. Guns in bars and restaurants. Guns in the hands of people who have threatened to kill themselves or someone else. Which firearms are legal and who can have them all expanded in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision two years ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which strengthened Second Amendment rights in America and launched hundreds of lawsuits challenging gun restrictions nationwide.

This summer, the Supreme Court said it had been misunderstood: Courts were taking too far Bruen’s guidance that gun laws must align with U.S. “history and tradition.” People under domestic violence restraining orders, the justices decreed, could be barred from having guns, allowing a looser interpretation of its decision from two years ago.
But on both sides of the gun-control debate, people say the ruling will do little to ease the confusion and disruption unleashed by the high court’s 2022 historical mandate. 
There’s not a lot of confusion, except by those who wish to navigate around the decision and the rule-of-law to continue to promote and defend unconstitutional gun control schemes that disarm those inclined to follow the law while doing nothing against violent criminals.
The high court also didn’t clarify how far back in American history judges must go to justify allowing firearms regulations. That leaves other major gun laws vulnerable at a time when the U.S. surgeon general has declared gun violence a public health crisis and as a new study reports that gun rulings have become more politically polarized, experts said.

It seems little Ms. Weiner (Is that pronounced “whiner?”) may have reading comprehension issues. More likely though, she reads just fine and is working to gaslight readers. Bruen clarified it. Repeatedly. She’s just ignoring the Bruen decision:

But when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635. The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates or postdates either time may not illuminate the scope of the right.  

Ms. Weiner’s screed continues…

The Bruen test was created in response to conservative complaints that the Second Amendment was not taken seriously enough, with courts too often prioritizing public safety concerns over gun rights. In Bruen, the court said no such choice was allowed — all that matters is whether there is a historical analogue for the regulation being challenged.
 
The prospect of implementing that decision helped drive Judge Paul Watford, 55, to retire from his lifetime appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Oh noes! He retired rather than follow the rule of law.  He retired, gets to enjoy a generous pension and then, of course, he’s gone to work for a high-priced law firm. His retirement was for entirely altruistic reasons, right?

“If the Supreme Court hands down a decision like Bruen that imposes a mode of analysis that you think is completely misguided, that leads to results you think are incorrect under the Constitution … if you’re not comfortable doing that, if you don’t want to be implicated in the process, you should find another job,” Watford said.

Later she writes this:

But experts say the decision was written so narrowly that it does not make clear how to address other clauses of the same federal law.

This is only unclear to those like Weiner who wish to conflate Rahimi’s narrow decision with Bruen as a whole.

In the absence of clear guidelines, according to a recent study, an ideological divide has emerged. Judges nominated by Republican presidents are twice as likely to support undoing firearms restrictions in significant decisions, a shift fueled in large part by Trump nominees.

“The Trump judges are close to casting 50 percent of their votes in favor of gun rights, when the average for other Republicans is 28 percent,” said the study from three university professors reviewing more than 1,000 gun-related decisions in the 18 months after Bruen.

Perish the thought that judicial nominees actually respect the Constitution and the rule of law, as opposed to activist judges who ignore the Constitution’s protections while creating other “rights” out of the ether.

The rest of the piece is just more of the same bait and switch effort at gaslighting people who don’t know any better.  But that’s what the Washington Post does so well these days.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

27 COMMENTS

  1. A consensus, or the experts, does this writer use footnotes for reference on this diatribe?, alas it’s written upon the pages of the compost.
    It’s feeding time for the lemmings; the earth is on fire, agenda 25 is causing self immulation, Brandon is their savior that can play 19 holes of golf in death valley on a balmy summer day.

    • Historical Analogies include the Racist History of Gun Control. Unfortunately many Gun Owners fail to remind democRats like rachel weiner over at the washington compost about that History. That failure leaves rachel weiner feeling righteous and free to fill gullible minds with her Gun Control garbage. So for you rachel weiner…
      https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZFEz3Bt9hCw&feature=shared

    • “Earning $85 an hour from home sounds like a dream! How do you manage your time effectively between day and evening shifts? It must be a rewarding yet challenging experience! ” Explore the cutting-edge strategies that redefine success”
      Here ➜➜➜➜➜ https://conservativeglobe0.blogspot.com

  3. The topic is sufficiently arcane for most people that I don’t really think I’d call this “gaslighting”.

    I’d simply call it “lying”. Which is kinda how WP became known as “Pravda on the Potomac”.

    “We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just moral category, but the pillar industry of this country.”

    • WP became known as “Pravda on the Potomac”.

      Wow I haven’t heard that term used in a long time. I remember watching the liberals just bristle with anger. When a conservative would say that on TV. About their favorite propaganda sheet.

    • I believe it was Churchill who said “a lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its pants on”

  4. The Washington Post gaslights… Let me look around. My shocked face is here somewhere.

  5. ““If the Supreme Court hands down a decision like Bruen that imposes a mode of analysis that you think is completely misguided, that leads to results you think are incorrect under the Constitution … if you’re not comfortable doing that, if you don’t want to be implicated in the process, you should find another job,” Watford said.”

    Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out douchebag.

    • Not sure how aggressive they are looking to be this time but damn they really do go out of their way to give us another chance to die for our country.

  8. Newsflash: bad people lie and deceive to consolidate and grow their power over weak-minded fools.

  9. You have a 1st amendment right to be deceitful. You have a 1st amendment right to lie and try to get people to make the wrong decisions, that can actually harm them.

    You can burn an American flag in protest. But if you burn rubber on a painted rainbow street flag. You will be arrested and charged.

    The libertarians liberals and the left have a first amendment right, to be deceitful, when they say they support the first amendment for everyone.

    Arrested for burning rubber. Wow, a really bad criminal. Worse than shoplifting store goods under $950 in value.

    https://www.advocate.com/pride-intersection-burnout-florida

    • That’s because the rainbow flag is the emblem of your conqueror and occupier, who will tolerate no disrespect from the peons.

    • “You can burn an American flag in protest”

      Yes, if the flag is your property. The constitution doesn’t mention national flags or national anthems, but it does have a first amendment protection for free speech.

      “But if you burn rubber on a painted rainbow street flag“

      Yes, intentionally defacing and destroying others’ property is indeed a criminal act. Even if you disagree with the display, destroying their free expression is a crime and an actual violation of the United States Constitution you claim to follow.

      Again, it seems every post you make here somehow concerns same sex activities.

      Thanks for letting us know what is top of mind with you.

      Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

      • A painted image on a public road is not an example of private property. In fact tire marks are left on all painted markings on surface streets. And no one is arrested for it.

        And burning an american flag is how they are properly disposed of. The Boy Scouts of America conduct flag burnings all the time. It’s a very special ceremony.

        So it’s “the reason” why rubber is burned on a painted street sign. And it’s “the reason” why a flag is burned that up sets people.

        And it’s why I like to point out that ho.mo.sexu.als don’t support civil rights.

        They see their ox being gored. If they want to engage in glory hole sex with multiple unknown partners. They can do so where it’s legal.

        But it’s still illegal in the ho.m.osex.ual controlled state of california. it’s the g@ys who are repealing civil rights laws. And ignoring the human rights of free people.

        They are threatening christians with arrest and imprisonment. If they attempt to attend organized church services. In 2020 and 2021.

      • Well. Here are more white ho.m.osexua.ls who murder innocent people. And the g@ys and ath.eists don’t want to talk about.

        But everyone wants to talk about blacks killing each other. To me I want to talk about all murderers. I don’t care about the s.exual ori.ent.ation or skin color.

        You and people like you are trying to avoid a discussion of the truth in public.

        An epidemic of tr@nny (g@y) shooters. They have killed more people. video 12 min long.

        https://youtu.be/ZLTRVhwVl6c?si=vI7YWFmK32B-EX_L

  10. The Washington Post is, and always has been, nothing more than a two-bit tabloid for the mental midgets of the world…on the same level as the National Enquirer.

  11. WaPo shoveling BS on an industrial level? So what is new?
    Progressive/leftist/liberal/Dementiacrat controlled scandal sheets are going to try to peddle the narrative no matter what the facts are. Only problem is there are people who believe it.

  14. The Roseburg Beacon from Roseburg, Oregon has been fighting political deceit and truth decay since 2008, and is a non-establishment independent newspaper detached from anti-gun elitists, socialists, and traitors against our republic! This is an honest weekly newspaper that remains beyond the reach, censorship, and silencing of Facebook, the Washington Post, and other “morally and intellectually” dishonest institutions! Consider subscribing to The Roseburg Beacon, as I have now for many years. You won’t regret it. On the Net:

    The Roseburg Beacon at http://www.roseburgbeacon.com.

Comments are closed.