Professor Jacob Charles, We Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term -- Slate

Professor Jacob D. Charles's opinion article, We Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term, is published in Slate. The article considers the pending Supreme Court case Viramontes v. Cook County, a Second Amendment challenge to the prohibition of assault weapons, in which the challengers argue that the Constitution prohibits the people in states with assault weapon bans from protecting themselves through law. The challenge directly concerns bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, but the court’s ruling will apply nationwide.

Excerpt from We Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term

The most galling part of their argument is the recurrent invocation of—and self-righteous cloaking of their argument in—the language of democracy. “The decision whether a type of arm is too dangerous for ordinary Americans to possess,” they wrote, “is one that the people are entitled to make, not one that courts are empowered to make for them.” They say this, to be clear, in a brief asking the judges of the Supreme Court to make the decision about what weapons can be possessed over the decision of voters. Because the lower courts upheld these laws, the challengers want the justices to tell the citizens of Connecticut, Chicago, and other jurisdictions like California and New York that they cannot make fundamental judgments about public peace and safety.

The complete article may be found at Slate (subscription may be required)