The
thing
about
grievance
culture
is
it
never
ends.
There’s
always
something
else
to
cry
about
when
your
whole
identity
is
wrapped
up
in
the
idea
that
someone
—
usually
someone
who
doesn’t
look
like
you
—
is
out
to
get
you.
Unsurprisingly,
the
people
who
think
the
woke
mob
is
responsible
for
everything
from
their
layoff
to
little
Katie
turning
them
down
for
prom
are
big
gun
fans.
Self-esteem
with
a
handle.
As
it
happens,
these
folks
have
“won”
everything
they
wanted.
In
Bruen,
the
Supreme
Court
went
ahead
and
fulfilled
the
promise
of
Heller
and
found
an
individual
right
to
guns
grounded
in
the
Second
Amendment.
But
rather
than
take
the
W,
they’ve
embraced
the
Orwellian
“we’ve
always
been
at
war
with
Eastasia”
approach
and
will
launch
into
conniptions
if
you
point
to
the
world
before
Heller.
It
all
started
with
a
citation
to
a
2006
piece
by
law
professor
Adam
Winkler:
This
claim
shouldn’t
be
controversial
unless
you’re
against
“counting”
and
“linear
time.”
Professor
Winkler
wasn’t
even
talking
about
federal
cases
in
this
article
because
it
was
pretty
well-established
that
the
Second
Amendment
did
not
give
people
a
federal
right
enforceable
in
their
state.
These
challenges
all
involved
state
constitutions
with
language
mirroring
the
Second
Amendment
and
of
THOSE
hundreds
of
cases,
only
six
struck
down
a
regulation.
I
retweeted
this
same
observation
with
more
provocative
language,
but
the
same
conclusion:
Which
also
shouldn’t
be
controversial.
It’s
cliché
at
this
point
to
recognize
that
the
far-right
of
the
Supreme
Court
agreed
on
this
as
recently
as
the
1990s,
but
clichés
achieve
that
status
for
a
reason.
You
can
believe
the
words
of
the
Second
Amendment
support
an
individual
right
to
guns
if
you
want,
but
you
can’t
pretend
that
existed
before
Heller.
But
gun
folks
went
BONKERS
over
the
mere
suggestion
that
there
was
a
history
of
law
and
jurisprudence
before
2008.
Not
gonna
lie,
watching
the
gun
freak
meltdown
over
this
tweet
has
brought
me
tremendous
joy.
To
reiterate,
neither
of
these
tweets
even
suggest
that
Heller
or
Bruen
are
wrongly
decided.
The
sole
claim
here
is
that
reading
an
individual
right
to
possess
guns
regardless
of
state
regulation
is
a
new
reading
of
the
Second
Amendment.
This
is
important
because
literally
no
one
ever
responds
to
this
point.
A
more
representative
sample
of
responses:
*
“What
an
unbelievably
wrong
takr”
*
“This
is
a
fucking
lie”
*
“How
did
you
pass
high
school?”
*
“Erroneous”
All
fascinating,
yet
not
exactly
impeaching
the
original
claim.
Perhaps
the
folks
with
big
followings
are
bringing
the
meat
of
the
challenge:
Mind
you,
this
is
not
the
beginning
of
a
thread.
There’s
nothing
after
this.
The
words
“it
just
is”
represents
the
sum
total
of
his
argumentative
acumen.
Actually,
that’s
not
fair…
the
GIF
is.
In
a
tragic
development,
his
280
characters
got
swallowed
by
all
those
adverbs,
which
prevented
him
from
actually
presenting
any
substantive
factual,
intellectual,
historical,
legal,
or
academic
argument.
Maybe
when
Elon
buys
Twitter
he’ll
up
the
limit
so
this
guy
can
find
literally
anything
to
say.
Unfortunately,
this
is
the
state
of
the
discourse:
sound
and
fury
signifying
nothing
trying
to
drown
out
anyone
citing
evidence.
Why
do
these
people
care
so
much?
Well,
they
love
to
live
by
the
sword
of
vague
originalism
when
it’s
stripping
away
civil
rights,
but
really
hate
dying
by
the
sword
when
anyone
pokes
into
why
George
Washington
lead
an
army
to
crush
the
Whiskey
Rebellion
for
stockpiling
weapons
outside
the
aegis
of
the
state
militia.
Originalism
has
them
tied
in
knots
and
it’s
just
not
enough
that
the
right
exists
now…
it
had
to
always
exist.
And
where
the
past
can’t
support
that,
it
must
be
suppressed.
Expunge
the
ratifying
statements
explicitly
identifying
the
right
as
a
matter
of
protecting
states
from
a
federal
army
(the
army
ship
—
ironically
—
has
sailed)!
Forget
the
contemporaneous
gun
regulations
in
place
that
the
amendment’s
framers
accepted!
Ignore
that
George
Mason
—
as
the
primary
author
of
the
text
—
didn’t
support
this
reading
and
expressly
rejected
the
Jeffersonian
proposal
(suggested
for
the
earlier
Virginia
Constitution)
of
an
individual
right!
Erase
the
caselaw…
including
the
hundreds
covered
by
Professor
Winkler’s
article.
Justice
Stevens
laid
out
all
this
history
in
Heller,
the
folks
complaining
on
social
media
just
wish
that
record
wasn’t
there.
While
the
sad
trolls
are
fun
to
laugh
at,
a
few
people
actually
tried
to
bring
something
to
the
discussion.
Unfortunately,
none
seemed
to
have
a
grasp
of
the
material
they
cited.
One
posted
a
third-party
summary
of
Presser
v.
Illinois
(1886)
—
a
case
about
a
law
banning
people
from
forming
private
militias
—
that
said
“the
Second
Amendment
right
was
a
right
of
individuals,
not
militias,
and
not
a
right
to
form
or
belong
to
a
militia,
but
related
to
an
individual
right
to
bear
arms.”
These
words,
of
course,
are
found
nowhere
in
that
opinion.
In
reality,
the
opinion
reaffirmed
that
the
Second
Amendment
“has
no
other
effect
than
to
restrict
the
powers
of
the
national
government”
and
that
state
and
municipal
regulation
is
allowed.
The
only
wrinkle
it
added
to
the
Second
Amendment
landscape
was
the
observation
that
states
can’t
pass
gun
laws
“so
as
to
deprive
the
United
States”
of
a
reserve
military
force.
Not
only
is
this
not
particularly
relevant
today
—
since
warfare
is
no
longer
BYOG
—
it
certainly
isn’t
laying
the
groundwork
for
an
individual
right.
Another
cited
a
legal
treatise
written
in
1824
by
William
Rawle,
who
had
served
in
the
legislature
that
ratified
the
Second
Amendment:
In
the
second
article,
it
is
declared,
that
a well
regulated
militia
is
necessary
to
the
security
of
a
free
state;
a
proposition
from
which
few
will
dissent…The
corollary,
from
the
first
position,
is,
that
the
right
of
the
people
to
keep
and
bear
arms
shall
not
be
infringed.The
prohibition
is
general.
No
clause
in
the
Constitution
could
by
any
rule
of
construction
be
conceived
to
give
to
congress
a
power
to
disarm
the
people.
Such
a
flagitious
attempt
could
only
be
made
under
some
general
pretence
by
a
state
legislature.
But
if
in
any
blind
pursuit
of
inordinate
power,
either
should
attempt
it,
this
amendment
may
be
appealed
to
as
a
restraint
on
both.
The
thing
about
cherry
picking
is
that
it
only
works
if
you
assume
the
other
person
won’t
go
back
and
check
your
work.
But
I
will!
A
practice
pointer
for
young
lawyers:
be
wary
of
an
ellipse.
This
particular
ellipse
cuts
out
some
pretty
important
stuff!
Like
Rawle’s
explanation
that
“well
regulated”
is
expressly
included
in
the
text
because
it
imposes
a
duty
upon
state
governments
to
regulate
guns
for
the
purpose
of
“mak[ing]
good
soldiers.”
Likewise,
if
this
person
then
read
for
TWO
MORE
PARAGRAPHS,
they’d
have
found
that
Rawle
believed
states
can
impose
any
regulation
on
guns
necessary
to
avoid
“the
disturbance
of
the
public
peace,”
and
that
open
carry
provides
sufficient
cause
for
authorities
to
stop
anyone
and
warrants
“imprisonment”
if
that
cannot
prove
good
intention.
I
guess
this
is
why
the
more
seasoned
responders
restricted
their
comments
to
“you’re
just
wrong.”
As
superficial
as
that
may
be,
support
for
their
position
just
goes
downhill
from
there.
Earlier:
Gun
Ruling
Proves
Supreme
Court
Just
Coasting
On
Vibes
At
This
Point
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.