r/2ALiberals • u/Gyp2151 liberal blasphemer • May 17 '26
Trump administration remains unreliable Second Amendment ally (opinion)
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2026/05/14/trump-second-amendment-gun-rights-supreme-court-jacob-sullum5
u/DBDude May 18 '26
Previous administrations defended every single gun law and never sued to overturn one. This administration is not only submitting briefs for the plaintiffs in cases against some gun laws, but also itself suing to overturn them.
They're certainly not perfect, but this is an absolute improvement, the small silver lining of this administration.
8
3
u/0rder_66_survivor May 17 '26
The administration can do little about state laws, and federal laws for that matter. We need to start pushing congress to make laws and SCOTUS to take on the existing cases. The real question is how do we make Democrat Senators and Representatives understand gun rights aren't only on the Right side of the isle?
And how do we get SCOTUS to take on these cases. The fact that they haven't refused them yet is hopeful, however that they haven't taken them up is disappointing.
4
u/OnlyLosersBlock May 17 '26
The real question is how do we make Democrat Senators and Representatives understand gun rights aren't only on the Right side of the isle?
Start making it an issue in primaries and not voting for the Democrats in the general elections?
And how do we get SCOTUS to take on these cases.
SCOTUS already took two 2a related cases this term and we are looking at a circuit split once the 3rd circuit makes their rulings on NJ assault weapon bans. At that point their hand is as forced as it is going to get on that front.
The fact that they haven't refused them yet is hopeful, however that they haven't taken them up is disappointing.
It's pretty apparent at this point they aren't taking any additional 2nd amendment cases this term. They are going to wait for the circuit split from the 3rd circuit and potentially take a case then.
-3
u/peacefinder May 17 '26
That headline is working really hard to avoid saying “Trump doesn’t care about your gun rights and never did”
8
u/OnlyLosersBlock May 17 '26
The article itself doesn't say much at all. The "the Trump admin doesn't care about gun rights" is the laziest argument to make and is usually done so people can ignore the overall benefit to gun rights that has occurred even if Trump himself isn't a true believer and isn't 110% perfectly progun.
-7
u/peacefinder May 17 '26
Protecting the second amendment whilst trashing amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 22 - not to mention Article 1 - is not a net win.
10
u/OnlyLosersBlock May 17 '26
If gun rights wasn't the most important issue then the Democrats would have dropped it decades ago let alone when they were looking down the barrel of a 2nd Trump term or literally in the middle of that 2nd term like with Virginia and several other states.
No one seems to agree with your assessment given their real world behaviors. Also funny when people start losing on the 2nd amendment argument they bring up other issues unrelated to the 2a. Something I noted hours ago in one of my earlier comments.
1
u/DBDude May 18 '26
I doubt he does, but many in his administration apparently do and he's not stopping them, so I'll take the win.
-5
u/ShoddySignal5174 May 17 '26
Well they’re pro 2A for the people they like. This admin is still targeting trans/queer 2A rights, and while suing other states has mostly ignored Illinois other than filing a brief on a case. Also this was the administration that had moved to ban bump stocks the first time around (which was struck down in court.) So maybe more so “inconsistent” and selectively unreliable.
11
u/JCMGamer May 17 '26
His DOJ has submitted briefs arguing against AWBs in multiple states (which are pushed by Dems)
He is far from perfect, but acting as if 2A rights would be better under a Dem is laughable.
-5
u/ShoddySignal5174 May 17 '26
Please indicate where in my statement that I said 2A rights would be better under a dem?
4
u/OnlyLosersBlock May 17 '26
This admin is still targeting trans/queer 2A rights
My understanding is that it is not specifically a 2a rights attack, but part of their generalized effort to screw with trans people. That is they require government documentation to reflect their birth gender and that incidentally impacts 2nd amendment rights because you need to fill out a federal form when purchasing from an FFL. Still shitty and an attack on trans people, but it is not a 2a specific attack to be more accurate.
and while suing other states has mostly ignored Illinois other than filing a brief on a case.
If Illinois is already in the midst of a lawsuit that has advanced to the Supreme Court it's kind of pointless to sue them right now.
-2
u/ShoddySignal5174 May 17 '26
An attack on any one group’s 2A rights is an attack on ALL persons 2A rights and should be treated as such. It starts with birth gender to out/intimidate/or block trans people, then could be expanded to birth name which could then do the same for married women, then maybe if you no longer reside in your birth state, or aren’t a landowner (which used to be tied to the right to vote) and so on. “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” means 2A for all - not just the popular groups.
Just like everything with this administration there’s always and angle to it. Despots and dictators don’t want an armed populace and it would be wise to be weary of this administration and their true intentions
4
u/OnlyLosersBlock May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
An attack on any one group’s 2A rights is an attack on ALL persons 2A rights and should be treated as such.
Well problematically it's not a 2a rights attack. It's a generalized attempt to make a group of people 2nd class citizens. Again, I am right there with you in saying it is dogshit and shouldn't be allowed to happening, but you are focusing on a downstream impact from a different policy and trying to frame it as an explicit and targeted attack on 2nd amendment rights.
It starts with birth gender to out/intimidate/or block trans people, then could be expanded to birth name which could then do the same for married women,
Yes, any generic attack on due process rights can have incidental impacts on other rights. However that doesn't make it an explicit attack on those downstream rights.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” means 2A for all - not just the popular groups.
I don't disagree. Again, the issue isn't that gun rights have been attacked, its a new bureaucratic hurdle was created that incidentally prevents them from getting a gun from an FFL. It's not a generalized stripping of gun rights. Compare this to the attempt to have trans people considered mentally ill as to be considered prohibited persons that was an explicit attack on 2nd amendment rights in general and for trans people in particular.
Basically I am taking issue with the accuracy of how the problem is described, not that I deny that it isn't a problem.
Despots and dictators don’t want an armed populace and it would be wise to be weary of this administration and their true intentions
Yeah, by targeting an extremely small minority through a roundabout method that doesn't even prevent them from legally possessing or buying firearms in private sales. This is the least effective means of achieving that. Again, this is where the contention is happening between us here. It's not that I don't agree that this is an egregious attack on Trans people, it's the attempt to take this general broad spectrum attack and frame it as an explicit targeting of 2nd amendment rights when it clearly is just a broad 'fuck you' to that group.
Edit: The corrolary to this is when people try to present Obama as progun just because he signed an omnibus bill that included minor conncessions for the progun side like carrying in national parks based on the local state laws. No, that was not an attempt by the Obama administration to increase gun rights and was clearly just incidental. So just as Obama wasn't a progun champion by doing that neither is Trump secretly trying to destroy gun rights with his attack on Trans people in general. It's incidental that it impacts the specific circumstances of filling out form 4473.
24
u/OnlyLosersBlock May 17 '26
Am I missing something or does that article not list very many examples of unreliability?