Laws that infringe on inalienable rights, or are broadly unconstitutional, are inherently null and void. Laws that infringe on the basic infrastructure of our lives cannot be legal, and cannot have justifiable action by the state to enforce. Unfortunately not everyone seems to understand this, and as such, laws are passed and enforced that infringe upon our rights anyways. When such laws are passed, they should immediately be overturned, and the state should have to affirmatively demonstrate and prove how the law would not infringe on rights and liberties.
Yesterday, at the time of this musing, Oregon’s Measure 114, a ballot initiative that would empower the state of Oregon to implement licensing requirements, and ban certain magazine sizes and other firearm accessories, was permanently blocked by a judge in Harney County. As stated in the article, the state government plans on appealing it to the state supreme court. This was always the likely outcome if 114 was ever blocked. However, the position of the state has become ever more difficult, as now the state will basically have to disprove why the Harney county judge was incorrect. The long story short is that the Harney county judge set a fairly high bar for the state to meet, and it’s unlikely that they can meet it. Furthermore, the federal case will likely be dropped due to a lack of standing, which is both a blessing and a curse. Oregon resides in the 9th Circuit for federal appeals, and the 9th Circuit is easily the most insane circuit. 80% of the cases reviewed by the Supreme Court from the 9th Circuit have been overturned. That isn’t to say that 80% of the cases in the 9th Circuit are overturned, but if a 9th Circuit case is reviewed by the SCOTUS, it’s probably going to be overturned. If 114 went through the federal circuit, it definitely would eventually been seen by the SCOTUS, and with the recent Bruen Decision setting such a high bar for government to prove legal right to enforce gun laws, 114 would have met its fate federally as well. Of course there is the issue of how much can the federal government interfere or involve itself in state politics, something that is still a sore subject from the Civil War and Civil Rights eras.
Of course, this whole issue should have been moot from the beginning. As I stated in my musing on the Second Amendment, the 2A is a plainly written right, and virtually all laws restricting arms in any capacity violate it. Measure 114 should have never been allowed to even be considered enforced by the state government, and the fact that tax payer money was used to infringe on a right, is a massive issue that needs to be addressed. People should not have to pay the privilege of the state to infringe on their rights and liberties. Government has virtually an unlimited stream of revenue and resources that it can use to fight any legal battle it wishes to. And if the state loses, it’s overall not an issue for the state, because it can collect your resources to recoup losses from a failed legal battle. Meanwhile, the infringed upon have to give up their time and resources to simply return to the status quo ante.
As I have before, the original purpose of government is to enact justice. I do not see how any law in which there are no victims is something the government should be interested in. I do not see how it is justice to encourage a certain set of behaviors in which the opposite has no harms, nor do I see how discouraging behaviors for the same reason is any more just than not. I do not see how virtually any and all behaviors that do not affect others are not covered by the 9th Amendment, and as such are protected as liberties. Finally, I do not see how any justification for allowing any law that infringes on rights and liberties should be allowed any level of enforcement, or even consideration. When laws that infringe are passed, they ought to immediately be barred from enforcement. The state should have to affirmatively prove that the law is not infringing on liberty and rights, and that it is a legitimate concern of government (justice).
How do we deal with the issue of government resources? I’m less sure of how to accomplish this. Maybe potentially setting a cap on how much of the state’s resources can be dedicated to legal issues in which a right is alleged to be involved is one avenue. However, this only diminishes the impact of how much you are paying for your right to be infringed, rather than eliminating it. Maybe dedicating state resources for the opposing side, in which for every dollar spent for the state, the state has to spend for the other side. While this again diminishes the impact, but it also gives resources for the side protecting liberty. Again, this is something I’m unsure of how to approach, as legal strategy is just as importance as legal theory.
The overall issue is that we have a culture of people who believe that rights are privileges, and that rights misused by some should be taken away from all. This mind virus that exists is the real enemy. Maybe the best approach is to slowly, over decades, change the mindset of people, and empower them to want to protect their rights, rather than see them as privileges. This is not only true for firearm ownership, but all rights. We forget that the 9th Amendment basically is a catch all for a near infinite number of rights, and the unenumerated are just as important as the rights that are written down. One right damaged is damaging to all rights.