As expected, this case in the Supreme Court led to the creation of a file The usual notes Gun rights advocates: the NRA, gun bats, libertarians, and Republican politicians. Strange and frustrating is that The petitioners also received support from a group of prestigious and seasoned New York public defenders., who argue that New York law should be repealed—not really on Second Amendment grounds, but because of the way the law is enforced against their clients, black and brown, poor defendants who need to bear arms for self-defense. Attorneys-General argue that, historically, permits were issued unevenly, and that still today, in many places, it is easier for whites and middle-class people to obtain permits than for people of color and the poor. They argue that their agents should have guns just as other Americans do. In other words, the progressive left met the far right in describing the dangerous streets and the necessity of arming them.
Their argument is not a legal one, but a political one, and is unlikely to affect a Supreme Court focused on the original text and meaning of the Constitution (although the court may find it a useful fig leaf if it decides against New York). He is meant to shock, and he is, in his nihilism – the nihilism that echoes the far-right heroes of the men we saw during the trial. Instead of taking guns out of the hands of the Rittenhouses and McMichaels of the world, these progressive public defenders want to “up the bar” — to make guns readily available to their customers, all of us. If their vision materializes, it will render the self-defense claims of Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. McMichael unnoticed, not only in the red states, but across the country.
The bold stance taken by these New York public defenders should pause for anyone inclined to understand, and perhaps even dismiss, Rittenhouse and McMichael’s defenses as fundamentally conservative arguments playing as conservative jurors in conservative states. If we begin to think of guns as a problem only in the hands of the other (white supremacists, the far right, and criminals), we will miss the simple fact that unregulated guns escalate violence across ideological lines. Their presence tends to create a need for self-defense on both sides of the trigger, something the law doesn’t say much about. If Mister Rosenbaum and Mister Arbery had already accessed those weapons, it wouldn’t have been the case that theyDo not doubt to act in self-defense? More guns, no matter who is in his hand, will create more confrontations, more intimidation, and more death in the eyes of the law.
Tali Farhadian Weinstein (@talifarhadian), a former federal and state attorney general in New York, is a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.