Search

Northwestern University: gun control should be used to disarm political opposition

Updated: Jun 10, 2021

As if we didn’t already know this was one of the major goals with gun control:


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3764258


Government regulates guns, it is widely assumed, because of the death and injuries guns can inflict. This standard account is radically incomplete—and in ways that dramatically skew constitutional analysis of gun rights. As we show in an account of the armed protestors who invaded the Michigan legislature in 2020, guns can be used not only to injure but to intimidate. The government interest in regulating guns to promote public safety is not only concerned with preventing physical injuries, but also with preventing weapons threats and protecting the public sphere on which a constitutional democracy depends.
For centuries the Anglo-American common law has regulated weapons not only to keep members of the polity free from physical harm, but also to enable government to protect their liberties against weapons threats and to preserve public peace and order. We show that this regulatory tradition grounds the understanding of the Second Amendment set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller, where Justice Antonin Scalia specifically invokes it as a basis for reasoning about government’s authority to regulate the right Heller recognized.
Today, a growing number of judges and Justices are ready to expand gun rights beyond Heller’s paradigm scene: a law-abiding citizen in his home defending his family from a criminal invader. But expanding gun rights beyond the home and into the public sphere presents questions concerning valued liberties and activities of other law-abiding citizens. Americans are increasingly wielding guns in public spaces, roused by persons they politically oppose or public decisions with which they disagree. This changing paradigm of gun use has been enabled by changes in the law and practice of public carry. As courts consider whether and how to extend constitutional protection to these changed practices of public carry, it is crucial that they adhere to the portions of Justice Scalia’s Heller decision that recognize government’s “longstanding” interest in regulating weapons in public places.
We show how government’s interest in protecting public safety has evolved with changing forms of constitutional community and of weapons threats. And we show how this more robust understanding of public safety bears on a variety of weapons regulations both inside and outside of courts—in constitutional litigation, in enacting legislation, and in ensuring the even-handed enforcement of gun laws. Recognizing that government regulates guns to prevent social as well as physical harms is a critical first step in building a constitutional democracy where citizens have equal claims to security and to the exercise of liberties, whether or not they are armed and however they may differ by race, sex, or viewpoint








I guess the university is also a fan of the racist Mulford Act......


https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol36/iss4/3/


When the Black Panthers screamed of an armed black populace on the verge of a revolution in 1966, the California Legislature responded with a gun control statute. While many journal articles have been written on the topic of race and guns, none have examined the history and motivations behind the California Legislature's decision to enact a gun control statute in 1967 for the purpose of disarming the members of the Black Panther Party.







https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/history/article148667224.html

May 2, 1967: Two dozen armed Negroes entered the state Capitol at noon today and 10 made their way to the back of the Assembly Chamber before they were disarmed and marched away by the state police.
The Assembly was in session at the time and Speaker Pro Tem Carlos Bee ordered the men removed from the chamber.
Outside the chamber, the police took away the weapons. The men argued they could carry the weapons as long as they were not concealed.
Apparently the fact the weapons were not concealed was the reason the men were able to get as far as the Assembly Chamber before they were disarmed.
After the state police questioned the men, they returned the weapons to them because the intruders had broken no law.
Following their release by the state police, the men left the Capitol and rejoined some companions who remained outside during the incident. They then drove off.
Four or five carloads of the Black Panther group later drove into a service station at 15th and L Streets. Several police officers took the demonstrators to the city jail.
An officer said they had not been charged with any offense, but added: “We’re going to take them all down and check them all out and we’re going to check out all these weapons.”

See folks? Gun control isn’t only rooted in racism, it’s rooted in disarmament based on politics. Never give up your guns. The 2A exists as a means to keep rogue legislators afraid of the populace (not a bad thing) and ALSO keeping our country free/defended. Let’s be real though. This paper by NWU exists so anti-gunners can use it for their purposes, whether it be fear porn or citing it in opinion pieces and maybe even court cases to stop 2A expansion.