As I was reading transcripts of oral arguments presented to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the Constitutionality of Maine’s 72-hour waiting period on firearm purchases, I found myself laughing frequently at the mental gymnastics on display and the idea that such an easy answer seemed so far out of the state’s intellectual grasp.
I know, I know. So, what is the answer? We’ll get to that, but first, let’s mock some anti-Second Amendment clowns whose lack of wit begs the question, how does this individual eat a bowl of cereal without accidentally drowning?
For those who actually live in America, the idea of a waiting period to take home a newly purchased firearm may seem foreign and absurd, and it is, but for those living in territories masquerading as American states, it’s just another day in authoritarian paradise.
Fortunately, attorneys representing Maine have been keen to point out their own corrupt attempts to pervert the meaning of the Second Amendment, arguing that the right to keep and bear arms does not implicitly protect the right to purchase them.
If there was ever a slimy, sleazy, and repugnant excuse for an individual, meet Christopher C. Taub, Maine’s chief deputy attorney general, whose arguments read like a brightly lit neon sign screaming, “I am not credible!” I wonder if he even noticed.
As I continued reading the transcript, I thought this line of abject stupidity might be reigned in after U.S. Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson objected to the notion, pointing out that “you gotta be able to get a firearm in some fashion.”
And she is correct, especially during a time when the government is working hard to eliminate homemade firearms. Who would have bet an Obama appointee could make such a precise and cogent statement? I certainly didn’t see it coming.
Thankfully, Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy in Washington, D.C., representing plaintiffs in the matter, was there to throw fuel on the fire in the form of superior reasoning.
“The only thing this law is doing is restricting possession … The state doesn’t care about the transaction. Or the legal title. They care about possession.”
Great point. The transaction being complete, this has nothing to do with the purchase, only possession. Taub walked right into that like a hyena into the lion’s den.
But Taub wasn’t about to give up trashing his credibility at the mere sign of logic and reason. He argued the Second Amendment would only factor in if a waiting period “meaningfully impairs” the right to keep and bear arms.
I didn’t catch the “meaningfully impairs” section of the Second Amendment, Chrissy, but I am familiar with the term “shall not be infringed,” and like most Americans, I don’t need to litigate the simple text into absurdity.
I wish I could tell you that Chrissy walked away with his tail between his legs at this point, but the clown show wasn’t complete. Taub next argued that the right is not applicable to all Americans, as “the Second Amendment applies to people who are law-abiding and responsible.”
But this time it was a Biden appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, who intervened to inform Taub that he was an idiot, but in a non-pejorative “judgy” manner that my direct to abrasive lack of patience does not afford me.
“Your argument is the waiting period is checking on whether people are law-abiding, and I don’t see that,” said Montecalvo.
First of all, this is absolutely correct, as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is, well, INSTANT! In most cases, a background check yields a result while the customer is still in the store. Strike three on this gun controller.
You would think it was time for Taub to hang up the scales of justice and seek employment in a more fitting environment for his personal intellect, especially after getting beaten up by both Obama and Biden judicial appointees on matters of the Second Amendment, but you’d be wrong.
Taub then chose to pivot, arguing that waiting periods save lives. But do they? When this argument is made, gun controllers are generally talking about those who seek to obtain a firearm to commit suicide.
Judge Thompson aptly pointed out, however, that such a provision would do nothing for those who already own a gun. I will expand on this by saying that those who don’t own a firearm typically have an alternative means of obtaining one, and the legality of doing so isn’t of much concern to them, all things considered.
Further, a firearm is not necessary to commit suicide, and a waiting period does nothing to protect from the litany of other methods available to those who have their minds set. The idea of violating the Constitutional rights of so many Americans in light of these facts is unconscionable, and U.S. Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, another Biden appointee, agrees with me.
“If I have an impulse problem, there are other ways I can get a gun. You’re taking a sledgehammer to a lot of people who are law-abiding and responsible but not necessarily solving for other people. You’re creating a lot of problems without a solution,” said Aframe.
Now, before we go giving these judges too much credit, let’s look at where they may have stepped in it themselves.
“Maine’s science says that waiting three days has indicia of proving responsibility, just like a safety class proves responsibility,” according to Aframe.
This isn’t about Maine’s science. It is about the Constitution of the United States of America. But one must also consider the source, and let’s face it, Democrats will lie, manipulate, and sell their souls to eviscerate freedom. So what do we know about the source? We know they either can not or will not understand the concise plain text of the Second Amendment. That’s enough for me. If you are either too stupid or too corrupt to seize its meaning, don’t even begin to speak to me about science.
Judge Thompson, as if looking to belong to both reasonable and incompetent sides of the argument, provided this nugget of mindlessness to the debate.
“[P]eople need safety classes in order to be responsible. In order for us to tease out who has a crisis, we wait three days; that’s how you tease it out,” Thomson said.
This prompted a response from Erin Murphy, demonstrating that the idea of “teasing it out” is speculative at best.
“At the end of three days, everyone gets the firearm. They don’t know. The state has not assured itself. They haven’t done anything,” Murphy said.
She also took a moment to remind the judges of a 2022 Supreme Court case that they may have heard of, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, pointing out that a waiting period “doesn’t fit with the historical tradition of doing something to ensure” responsibility.
Remember, this isn’t about what one might subjectively feel is a good or effective policy. This is about the law, and even though both federal and state governments have all but thrown out the Constitution, certainly a 2022 Supreme Court ruling should be fresh in their minds.
At the end of the day, the judges seemed largely confused on the subject, perhaps suggesting they should seek a job application at the local McDonalds alongside Taub, where they would be safe from having to interpret simple text, not to mention I’m not going to show up to their workplace and slap the frier basket out of their hand like I’m doing today. Aframe even questioned whether or not the right to bear arms meant that Americans have the right to bear them immediately, or if “meaningfully impaired” was some sort of standard by which there is any metric to measure. Really?
Alright. I promised a solution to the debacle, and I’m a man of my word. Are you ready for it? Apply the same standard to all the other liberties recognized by the Bill of Rights.
Start with the First Amendment. Could some sort of waiting period protect individuals from saying things that are perhaps offensive or capable of inciting conflict? It is the left, after all, that championed the “words are violence” movement. If so, would making people wait to exercise their free speech pass Constitutional muster? There’s your answer.