Overview of Supreme Court’s AR-15 Ruling
A recent article in the New Republic aims to summarize the upcoming Supreme Court ruling concerning the AR-15, branding the notion that citizens should be armed to combat tyranny as a “pop constitutional concept.”
The piece, titled “The Mother of All Assault Weapons Cases is Coming,” focuses on a brief from the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), which argues that the Second Amendment exists to help “deter tyranny.”
The New Republic reported that NAGR asserts the idea of an armed citizenry serving as “the constitutional check on tyranny” remains relevant but could fade away if the government is permitted to “ban the arms that make it credible.”
In responding to NAGR’s claims, Matt Ford from New Republic mentioned, “I have previously written about this pop constitutional concept, which posits a supposed Second Amendment right that could justify harming civil servants and assassinating elected officials.”
Ford continued, suggesting:
This principle stands against other Second Amendment interpretations that maintain the right to bear arms is limited to lawful pursuits. Framing the right in terms of lawful use can be convoluted—it’s essentially a half-truth at best—but it becomes especially complex when it’s used as a defense against tyranny.
It might be insightful to reference Federalist Paper 46. Breitbart News highlighted that James Madison referenced this document to articulate the notion that American citizens, due to their armament, have a unique ability to check federal authority.
Madison claimed that one of the strongest, if not the strongest, defenses against federal tyranny is an armed populace. He contrasted Americans with Europeans, suggesting that the former could unite to resist a government using military might against state power, whereas disarmed Europeans lacked that capability.
In Federalist 46, Madison illustrated that an armed citizenry, in tandem with “the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached,” creates a structure where people can come together to protect their rights and freedoms. The citizenry would organize into “militias” with appointed officers from local governing bodies, and their collaboration would hold significance precisely because the people were armed.
