Before we talk about today’s topic, what may be the single most bizarre anti-2A legal brief ever (or, at least to come before the Supreme Court), let me make two points worth mentioning:
- “50% of all attorneys graduated in the bottom half of their class.” (Hat tip to commenter billtaggart1267 for this comment on the video below.), and…
- Just because a person says that they practice constitutional law doesn’t mean that they understand the Constitution. Or law. Or the meanings of words.
Now that we have that covered, let’s talk about what may be the single most bizarre anti-2A legal brief that has been submitted to the Supreme Court. And it’s… well… something else.
So, David A. Robinson is an attorney who is a member of the Connecticut Bar Association who has published his own anti-2A pamphlet (it’s a stretch to call a 29 page document a “book,” in my opinion) trying to get a 28th Amendment passed to repeal or limit the Second Amendment.
That’s a hard no from me, right there.
But in his brief to SCOTUS, Robinson says that “it is the role of this Court to pronounce the Second [Amendment] extinct or partly extinct. This Court cannot expect the American people to do so.”
And here I’ve been thinking that the Court’s job this whole time has been determine whether a law violates the Constitution or not. I’m so glad that Mr. Robinson clarified for me that it is the Court’s “role” to do things for my own good even if I don’t want them done including if those things are unconstitutional (pardon my sarcasm…).
The brief goes on to argue that because militias no longer exist (in spite of many groups across the nation calling themselves militias), then individuals no longer have the right to keep and bear arms. As if rights come from government and not from our Creator…
But it gets better. Robinson says that the Second Amendment isn’t in place to protect people’s right to fight tyranny because, according to Robinson, tyranny is “subjective.” And he then goes on to equate magazine capacity limits to speed limits.
And a little further is where Robinson’s brief gets really strange. He equates legal firearm ownership to abortion.
Yes, really.
But, wait! There’s more!
Because Robinson goes on to equate the Second Amendment’s militia clause with the white’s only professional baseball leagues that existed before 1947. How does that make sense, you may ask? It’s strange and tangential, at best. And, even then, it fails to be a convincing argument on any level.
It really is just a weird brief, but you can get a detailed breakdown of Robinson’s irrational and wrong arguments by watching Washington Gun Law’s detailed video about it below.
Robinson’s “arguments” will either enrage you or make you laugh, but you’ll have trouble taking them seriously. Even William Kirk had trouble keeping it together to make the video, as you can see from the outtakes at the end of the video.
