"The bump stock ban case is about whether the ATF's interpretation of the definition of a "machinegun" is correct..."

Thanks to the Supreme Court, you can be mistaken for someone else, wrongly arrested, and jailed by police, and there's nothing you can do about it.

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhEKPfUnM7c[/embed] While everyone is paying attention to the Trump indictment soap opera, a stealth attack is being launched against the Second Amendment, the likes of which we may not be able to stop. Last week, I wrote about the UN Arms Treaty, and how many of the laws being pursued by the Biden Administration fall in line with many of the treaty's objectives. The existence of this treaty is terrible enough as it is. The stealth attack to which I am referring, however, has the potential to destroy the foundations of the Second Amendment while empowering the government to disarm anyone they deem to be a danger to society. Who might these people be? I think we all know the answer to that. Last year, SCOTUS ruled in NYSRPA V. Bruen, that all gun control must align with the nation's historical and traditional laws going back to the founding, and the plain text meaning of the Second Amendment. In other words, if there were no laws prohibiting people from carrying firearms, then any modern law that does so is to be deemed unconstitutional. They also ruled that the two-tiered test that weighed constitutional rights against public safety interests was to be thrown out. If the Second Amendment's plain text meaning covered a person's conduct, that conduct was protected by the Second Amendment. This ruling had gun owners across the country reeling with excitement as the belief rapidly spread that gun control was now a sitting duck. Despite the Bruen ruling, states across the country continue to push draconian gun laws, and several appellate courts have upheld so-called assault weapon bans because the Second Amendment doesn't protect dangerous and unusual weapons - so they argue. There have been some victories as several gun control laws have been shot down as a result of the Bruen ruling. One of these victories, however, may soon prove to be a disaster. If you have ever filled out an ATF 4473 to purchase a gun then you know that if you are subject to a restraining order, you are considered a prohibited person. To most people who are not avid 2A supporters, this makes sense. The problem with this law is that you are being denied your rights without due process. Once someone files a restraining order, and it is signed by a judge, you are prohibited from possessing a firearm. This, of course, is also the foundation for red flag laws. Except in these cases the individual in question is not informed that an order has been issued at all, they just show up and confiscate your guns. The difference between the two is under a red flag law, anyone can file a petition for any reason if they believe you are a danger to yourself or others. In February, following the Bruen guidelines, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that laws prohibiting people from owning firearms because of a restraining order were unconstitutional. The case revolved around an individual named Zackey Rahimi, who admittedly, was not exactly the model citizen. He had been accused of committing several acts of violence, some of which were with a firearm. The problem is that he was never convicted of a crime, aside from possessing a firearm while under a restraining order. If he was a dangerous individual, and I am not arguing he wasn't, he should have been arrested and put through the legal process for those issues, and if found guilty, legally barred from firearm possession. The restraining order was issued on accusations, not proof of, domestic violence. In America, we have the right to life and liberty, and our rights shall not be deprived without due process of law. So we've been told. This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court by Attorney General Merrick Garland. On the surface, it seems simple enough. There were no laws at the time of the founding which disarmed people based on accusations alone. Right? Not necessarily. Our nation has a rich history of disarming people deemed to pose a threat to the social order. Freed slaves, Natives, and Catholics were all categorically denied the right to bear arms because they were deemed to be dangerous. Why would Blacks, for example, be denied Second Amendment rights? Because there was a fear they would rebel. Despite the despicable, racist nature of these laws, the government is using them as the basis of their appeal arguing that the nation's dangerousness laws, which date back to the founding, legitimately apply to the modern use of restraining orders. The Fifth Circuit, acknowledging the existence of such laws, argued that they were meant to protect the social order from dangerous groups, not one individual from another. Therefore, the historical context analogy was thrown out, leading to the appeal. The Department of Justice is now making the same argument in front of the Supreme Court. The nation's historical laws revolving around disarming groups of people deemed to be dangerous are constitutional under the Bruen guidelines. Here is where it gets interesting, if not downright disturbing. SCOTUS is going to do one of two things. They will either declare these laws illegitimate because they were themselves, unconstitutional and bigoted, and we all live happily ever after. Or, they will side with the government for fear of not wanting to be perceived as letting dangerous people have access to guns. This would mean they accepted the government's position that these historical laws fall within the Bruen guidelines, and can be used as a context for gun control in the name of public safety. Which way do you think they will go? This is a brilliant strategy by the DOJ. One truly befitting of an Alkinsky-type radical because no matter what decision SCOTUS makes, they will either appear supportive of dangerous people owning guns, or unable to follow their own rules. If SCOTUS should side with the government we will have some serious issues. If laws disarming groups of people, because they were deemed to be dangerous, are accepted as a legitimate historical context, what would stop them from disarming anyone? Red flag laws would survive any constitutional scrutiny, and any group that went against the perceived social norm could be deemed a threat. What would happen during another round of Covid restrictions, or climate lockdowns? Would you be deemed a danger to yourself or others for refusing to wear a mask, get vaccinated, or stay inside when everyone else is complying? As far as the Democrats are concerned, all white people are racist white supremacists whom Biden has declared the biggest threat to the nation. Those words should not be taken lightly as they would disarm every one of us at the first opportunity. Don't ever forget that this document still exists, and it refers to anyone who is concerned about gun restrictions, illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, and excessive taxation as a potential right-wing extremist/domestic terrorist. Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence. (Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment) Take that for what it's worth. Even if SCOTUS rules on the side of the Second Amendment, we still have the UN Arms Treaty, The Great Reset, and Agenda 2030 to contend with. Not to mention the rumors of more Covid restrictions. While many of us will not comply with this, we are vastly outnumbered by those who will. Oh well, such is the way.