Money, the Second Amendment and A Westford Bylaw
The opinions expressed in this post are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect opinions or positions held by Indivisible Northampton-Swing Left Western MA.
In my opinion, the NRA, the Supreme Court and federal courts have championed the idea that gun control legislation is a violation of Second Amendment rights because of money.
The influence of lobby money and “charitable” law school donations by those who profit from firearm sales shapes law school curricula, the lawyers and judges they produce, and the elected officials who nominate, vote for and appoint judges. An NRA supported president appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who in Kanter v. Barr, argued that “Founding era legislators did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.” The three judges in USA v. Rahimi were appointed by NRA funded presidents. Judge Cory T. Wilson cited Barrett when the court ruled that a federal law forbidding persons with a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a handgun was a violation of Rahimi’s Second Amendment rights.
I also feel that limited gun sense legislation is difficult and major legislation impossible to pass because of money.
In 2021, gun rights, gun control (Rep. Maria Salazar, R-FL, received money from each) and gun manufacturing lobbies totaled $21.4 million (opensecrets.org). The firearm and ammunition industry paid $7.9 billion in business taxes, including property, income and sales-based levies. The total economic impact of the firearm and ammunition industry in the United States reached $70.5 billion (Firearm Industry Trade Association).
U.S. legislators do not want to slow the flow of money.
Westford does not have this economic coercion, but today, the Second amendment is a live topic. We have a zoning bylaw proposal that would limit the number and location of future firearm businesses and require special permits for them to operate. This will not remove guns and ammunition from the hands of gun owners. It simply limits the number of businesses in your own home town. I tuned and repaired Massachusetts pianos for 39 years, and the closest store for decent tools and supplies in 1982 was New Jersey, and in 2002, Michigan.
I support the right of people to own and operate firearms. In fact, I would rather meat eaters bag their own wild game. This would reduce the methane production of cattle farms, which exacerbates global warming.
Do sensible limits and bylaws really violate Second Amendment rights? The idea began with those who profited from firearm business money, and is continued by those who believe them.