Slate Critique on 5th Circuit 2A Ruling
for Young Adults Raises Questions
By Dave Workman. Feb 3, 2025
Article Source
OPINION: In the aftermath of a ruling by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the federal ban on handgun sales to young adults, Slate published an Op-Ed by an Amherst College professor decrying the court panel's "open invitation" to the Supreme Court "to take another step toward making gun ownership a constitutionally preferred right."
What, exactly, is a "preferred right," and what makes it different from all the other rights protected by the Constitution's Bill of Rights?
Austin Sarat, the author of Slate's OpEd does not explain. Instead, Sarat—identified as "the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science and a professor of law, jurisprudence, and social thought at Amherst College"—details what he thinks is wrong with the 5th Circuit decision.
"Following that logic," Sarat writes, "the court ignored the current situation and the reason why, more than five decades ago, Congress banned the sale of handguns, but not other firearms, to people under the age of 21."
What Sarat seems to ignore is the guideline established in the 2022 Bruen ruling by the Supreme Court. Simply put, no more "means-end" scrutiny for gun control.
Sarat also does what so many gun control proponents have done: In the middle of his essay, there is a comparison of traffic fatalities during the first nine months of 2024. It's an alarming figure of 29,134 people lost to traffic mishaps, compared to 40,846 "gun-related" deaths, the majority of which were suicides (24,156) and "16,690 homicides, murders, and unintentional deaths."
Driving is a privilege, while the keeping and bearing of arms is a right protected by the Second Amendment and most state constitutions. Apples and oranges.
When ABC News reported the 5th Circuit ruling, it stated, "Handguns have been the most commonly used weapons in murders and mass shootings for decades in the United States, according to government data analyzed by The Violence Project."
Almost 17 years ago, when the Supreme Court released its ruling in Heller, the Court observed, "the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."
The gun, itself, is an inanimate object; a tool which is, as noted in the classic film "Shane," only "as good or as bad as the man using it."
Denying an entire class/group of people a constitutional right because some abuse the right does not justify such a sweeping prohibition, the 5th Circuit essentially says.
The case will likely go to the Supreme Court, at which point the justices may explain what a "preferred right" is, and why it may differ from all the other rights.
