Trying And Failing To Make The
Constitutional Case For 'Gun Control'
By Cam Edwards. October 28, 2019
Yale Law School students Joshua Feinzig and Joshua Zoffer may not be able to practice law quite yet, but that doesn't mean they can't argue in the court of public opinion, and the pair have put forward their best argument in favor of the constitutionality of gun control over at The Atlantic. Unfortunately for the two Joshuas, their argument isn't good enough to rise above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Feinzig and Zoffer stake their argument on a brief filed by March For Our Lives with the Supreme Court in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City case. That brief argues that, even though we have a Second Amendment, local jurisdictions should be able to pass virtually any 'gun control' law because of public safety concerns. That's not making a constitutional case for 'gun control', it's making a case that the Constitution is subordinate to the whims of local lawmakers. In fact, Feinzig and Zoffer go so far as to claim that 'gun control' laws represent a form of self-defense.
..... 
This shows an example of a skewed approach trying to downplay the meaning of the Second Amendment, from an absolute to a right with potential infringements. Furthermore there is the premise that a nationwide right can be subverted by any state jurisdictions just to support beurocratic whims over supposed 'public safety'. As usual the targets are good people, with little or no answers for dealing with criminals.
