An Interesting Answer to Unconstitutional Laws

When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it’s supposed to be listened to. I get that some people are bound and determined to try and push the boundaries of any ruling by the Court, but you’re not supposed to flagrantly flaunt that ruling.

The Bruen decision, for example, should have put a whole lot of gun control laws to bed, but perhaps more importantly, it should have put an end to a lot of gun control proposals before the start.

Take proposals in Pennsylvania and Florida that would ban so-called ghost guns, among other things.

Over at The Truth About Guns, Darwin Nercesian has an interesting proposal for how to deal with the people who pull this crap.

Until they face legal consequences, the contemptuous left has made it clear that they will continue to spend tax dollars legislating in defiance of the judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court. While “contemptuous” could be aptly described here as full of scorn or disdain, I am referring to contempt of court, legal terminology that describes the act of disobedience or disrespect towards the judicial branch in opposition or defiance of its authority. 

You might be asking, can a lawmaker be held in contempt? The answer is absolutely. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorizes federal courts to punish contempt by fine or imprisonment. At some point, the Supreme Court should decide if it is merely a symbolic relic of days past or if its rulings have any teeth backed by authority. An example of the contempt I am speaking of is the constant legislation and re-legislation of anti-Second Amendment bills which ignore previous judicial instruction.

Rep. Melissa Shusterman of Pennsylvania recently set her sights on “ghost guns,” intending to introduce a bill regulating them out of existence in 2025. Shusterman seeks to implement requirements that 3D-printed firearms be restricted to production by those with a federal manufacturing license, thus removing the long-standing tradition of Americans making firearms at home for private use.

Nercesian also notes that Florida Rep. Christine Hunschofsky has a proposal that doesn’t just ban “ghost guns” but also pushes through a universal background check law.

Of course, the Florida bill is especially unlikely to happen, but the Pennsylvania one isn’t overly likely to pass either.

Regardless, those measures are of interest but aren’t what I think is the big takeaway here, and that is lawmakers who blatantly ignore rulings like Bruen being held in contempt.

I’ve always argued that contempt of Congress isn’t so much a crime as a civic duty, but contempt of the Supreme Court’s rulings on our basic civil liberties is a different matter entirely. 

The Bruen decision was clear-cut. You need to have a parallel to the time of the nation’s founding if you want a gun control law to be considered constitutional. So-called ghost gun bans have no such parallel. Neither do universal background checks, but bans on homemade firearms blatantly fly in the face of the Founders’ intents. This was something that people did back then. If they’d had an issue with it, they could have legislated against it. They did no such thing, so their feelings on the matter are pretty obvious.

Yet lawmakers keep trying to ignore the Supreme Court’s rulings.

It would be nice to see the Court start handing down fines and penalties for lawmakers who ignore their rulings. Especially if those fines actually hurt the lawmakers financially. I think you’d see them at least pretend to try and work within the Court’s rulings for a change.