Progressivism is a totalitarian project. It’s not a rule of law project. It’s an effort to make everyone conform in heart, mind, soul, and behavior to a singular outlook that emanates from a singular social element (bicoastal, urban, white-collar, an academy smothered in radical progressivisms). Ends are all that matters; means are basically irrelevant to them.
It played out again before the Supreme Court. The Left, the home of today’s muscular progressivism, is all aflutter over the Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill (June 14, 2024) to find no legislative warrant to ban bump stocks (see #1 below). It didn’t rule on the propriety of a ban on bump stocks. That’s not the judiciary’s job in our constitutional order. The courts apply the laws in cases before it. It’s simple for the Article III branch: no law, no case. If you want bump stocks prohibited, elect a gung-ho Congress and President to make such a law. It’s a job for legislation. It’s the job of your elected representatives. If not enough of them are elected, don’t act like little caudillos to the rest of us by inventing law where no law exists, playing a pretend game while trampling underfoot the design of our civic order.
The Court’s ruling in Garland v. Cargill hinged on a basic question: Where’s the law to justify Trump’s 2018 order to ban bump stocks? The language of the Federal Firearms Act (1934) and the Gun Control Act (1968) are weak gruel for Trump and the progressive totalitarians among us to magically summon up a legal basis to reach beyond what Congress has authorized. Up until 2018, the ATF repeatedly announced its lack of authority to ban the things. The reason is obvious. The FFA defines an automatic weapon as something integral and internal to the trigger set of the gun, not to the novel and awkward ways a semiautomatic gun is held or shouldered. Sorry, progressives, no law, no case.
One of the progressives’ favorite gambits is to announce a supposedly irrefutable history judgment that is easily refuted. You know, the one that magically transmutes a well-understood individual right into a fashionable government right for a militia. It flies in the face of history. No one up until the rise of 20th century progressivism, and still too few since, viewed grandpa’s shotgun as a part of the National Guard’s armory. 17th century Englishmen were armed to the teeth, and it was codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1688-9. We were founded as transplanted Englishmen in the sense that their culture and norms took root here and were reflected in colonial-state charters/constitutions.
Progressives, admit it, you want to change the Constitution without following the rules, which demands an amendment, or at least a law from the Article I branch and concurrence of the Article II. If the rules are too cumbersome for you, that’s sign that you don’t have enough support. So, don’t try to cram down the people’s throat that for which you don’t have enough support. You’re showing yourselves to be singularly authoritarian, if not totalitarian.
It appears that the ruling denizens of our cities, faculty lounges, and coastal enclaves won’t be happy till everyone eats, dresses, thinks dutifully agnostic, and in all other ways adopts the habits of a Manhattan or Malibu soirée. Sounds pretty totalitarian to me.
But, like the Court majority in Garland v. Cargill, where’s the law? Hopefully, with the exception of someone named Trump being pursued by Alvin Bragg before a Manhattan judge and jury, there’s still enough respect for the rule of law, and the rules, to protect us from the caprice of a small social clique. They still need law, which I pray that we won’t grant them.
RogerG
Sources:
1. Official Supreme Court ruling in Garland v. Cargill at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
2. Thanks to Charles C. W. Cooke for his piece in National Review, “CNN’s Dominic Erdozain Is Lying about Firearms Law Again”, 6/18/2024, at https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cnns-dominic-erdozain-is-lying-about-firearms-law-again/
3. “Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks on guns”, John Fritze et al, CNN, 6/14/2024, at https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/14/politics/supreme-court-bump-stocks/index.html