Biden’s DOJ Actually Argued that Guns Can Be Limited Because Gov’t Historically Oppressed Minorities

The Biden Department of Justice actually argued in court that government can take away people’s guns today because government had prevented politically oppressed classes from having them in the past.

You heard that right. Biden is saying we can oppress certain classes of people and take away their Second Amendment rights because certain federal and state governments oppressed minorities before. So, sure it was wrong to oppress minorities in the past, but, heck, since we did it before, we can do it today.

Yes, this is blinkered logic. If it was wrong in hindsight to oppress blacks, Jews, or anyone else that the powers that be wanted to disarm 100 years ago and more, then its wrong to do it today to Christians, Republicans, and white people… wouldn’t you think?

Check out these ignorant arguments that Biden’s corrupt DOJ made in court:

The Government next points to laws in several colonies and states that disarmed classes of people considered to be dangerous, specifically including those unwilling to take an oath of allegiance, slaves, and Native Americans…. [But t]he purpose of these “dangerousness” laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another. Therefore, laws disarming “dangerous” classes of people are not “relevantly similar” to § 922(g)(8) such that they can serve as historical analogues.

Finally, the Government offers two proposals that emerged in state ratification conventions considering the proposed Constitution. A minority of Pennsylvania’s convention authored a report in which they contended that citizens have a right to bear arms “unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury.” And at the Massachusetts convention, Samuel Adams proposed a qualifier to the Second Amendment that limited the scope of the right to “peaceable citizens.”

But these proposed amendments are not reflective of the Nation’s early understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment right. While they were influential proposals, neither became part of the Second Amendment as ratified. Thus, the proposals might somewhat illuminate the scope of firearm rights at the time of ratification, but they cannot counter the Second Amendment’s text, or serve as an analogue for § 922(g)(8) ….

Fortunately, this argument fell flat in court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the leftist DOJ’s bid to gain approval to ban guns and restrict people’s rights.

The court ultimately said that Biden’s stance on banning guns for its currently designated class of “prohibited persons” lacks any “true limiting principle,” meaning that it is so elastic that it can cover absolutely anyone at any time, and can be applied to ANY minority standing outside the government’s current list of approved classes.

That is a recipe for political oppression, not a lawful ideal.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston, or Truth Social @WarnerToddHuston

Tags: Commentary