That’s the title at Slate, because Mark Joseph Stern thinks he has found out that progressive judges have finally found a use for the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.  After a silly and emotional (and factually incorrect) diatribe against the Bruen decision, he says this.

What’s a progressive judge to do? Public defenders have already offered an answer: employ the Second Amendment in furtherance of progressive constitutional values like equal protection and the rights of criminal defendants. Because so many high-profile gun cases are manufactured by conservative activists—including this one—it’s easy to forget who’s really on the front lines of the Second Amendment revolution: criminal defense attorneys representing indigent clients charged with firearm offenses. (It’s telling that one Biden appointee who joined the majority in Range, Arianna Freeman, spent her entire legal career as a federal public defender.) Public defenders have a Sixth Amendment obligation to provide their clients with a zealous defense, which increasingly includes constitutional challenges to gun restrictions.

That’s why New York City’s public defenders filed a brief in Bruen urging the Supreme Court to strike down nearly all limitations on public carry. And it’s why the 3^rd Circuit’s top public defenders—Freeman’s former colleagues—filed a similar brief in Range attacking the federal felon-in-possession ban. The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions all envision “law-abiding, responsible citizens” who seek to protect themselves and their families from violence. But in the real world, the people who have the most to gain from these rulings are criminal defendants facing down years or decades in prison. Recent decisions establishing a right to scratch out a gun’s serial number and purchase a firearm while under indictment or restraining order all arose out of criminal prosecutions, not NRA-backed test cases.

Like a growing number of public defenders, liberal judges like Freeman, Ambro, Greenaway, and Montgomery-Reeves may think that the Second Amendment can be repurposed as a weapon against over-policing and mass incarceration. If upheld by the Supreme Court, Range will certainly be a boon to the criminal defense bar, as well as a source of immense confusion for prosecutors. The majority’s standard is extraordinarily vague: It acknowledges that some people may be disarmed for committing a felony, but a person “like Range” could not. How can judges tell when someone falls on Range’s side of the line? The majority didn’t say. In 2019, then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett took a stab at a clearer standard, asserting that only “dangerous” and “violent felons” may be disarmed. But which crimes count as “violent”? Is selling or using cocaine “violent”? How about possessing child pornography? Drunk driving? Burglary? Harassment? In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court found it impossible to give the term “violent felony” a “principled and objective” standard. Why should courts have any more luck today?

This uncertainty would force prosecutors to think twice before bringing felon-in-possession charges, asking first whether they could persuade a court that the defendant is sufficiently “dangerous” or “violent” or “non-law-abiding” to justify disarmament. And from a criminal justice reform perspective, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Plenty of left-leaning commentators have argued that the felon-in-possession ban is disproportionately enforced against people of color, contributing to mass incarceration and persecution of minority communities. For many progressives, these problems raise concerns about equal protection, unlawful policing, and unconstitutional sentences. But this Supreme Court doesn’t see them that way; it cares far more about gun rights than traditional civil rights, such as basic civic equality of Black Americans. So progressive judges may instead seek to use the Second Amendment as a stand-in for constitutional principles that SCOTUS has abandoned.

That’s a lot to unpack and I haven’t the time to fisk it all.  He makes many mistakes, including the assumption that the NRA is a gun rights organization.  As we’ve pointed out many times before, they were in favor of NFA, GCA, the completely unconstitutional Hughes Amendment, the original AWB, the bump stock ban, red flag laws, and a host of other liberty-infringing laws and regulations.  The sooner we can move the NRA out of the way, the sooner we can begin to restore our liberties.  Because pols turn to them for views and approval, they are like a ball and chain attached to us.

Other false assumptions might be that advocates of liberty would somehow be opposed to a turnaround in mass incarceration and over-policing.  Look no further than this web site for advocacy of this recent third circuit ruling, including your truly and all of the commenters.  And even a cursory look at our police category proves that we are against over-policing.  The writer is confusing lovers of liberty with the advocacy of modern incarnation and reflexive “conservative” cop-advocacy.  Here, think Bill Barr, who defended Lon Horiuchi.

His is a very dated view.  He lumps us in with folks who think nothing like us.  I don’t believe in incarceration as it is currently conceived anyway, i.e., as effectual for redemptive and rehabilitative purposes.  Put simply, I don’t believe in imprisonment.  Per the Biblical paradigm, I believe in slavery to pay debts, and capital punishment for capital crimes such as rape, kidnapping and murder.  There is absolutely no good reason, and by the way, no Biblical justification, for charging a man with the carry of a weapon if he commits some other crime, regardless of whether he had approval from a state permitting schema.  Charge him for the crime he committed, not ownership of weapons.  If you wonder what modern gun owners think about this view, look to the guys at Reddit/Firearms, who completely support this decision as do we.  Gun control laws are infringements – full stop.

But that’s not the end of the conversation, you see.  Because if by over-policing the writer at Slate means the arrest of the Antifa protesters in Portland, Seattle, Charlotte, Atlanta, and elsewhere, we disagree with him.  More to the point, liberty means the right to defend yourself and your loved ones.  It means the right to shoot people who endanger your life and the lives of your loved ones.  As I have told my wide when she had to drive in Charlotte several years ago when this was all going down, if you’re on John Belk Freeway (I-277) and Antifa protesters block the way and start beating on cars (like they did at least once), run them over, and kill them if you must.

That road is like a moat.  It’s walled on both sides for miles, and the only opportunity for egress to protect your life is finding one of the few exits and getting out of the city.  Liberty doesn’t mean allowing communists agitators to rape you, kidnap you, steal from you or damage your property, or take your life.  It means defending against all of that, including with weapons of your choice.

Mr. Stern is a controller and finds it so remarkable that mass incarceration might suffer a blow from this decision that it’s worth an article.  Join the club, Mark, albeit a bit late.  I don’t believe men should go to prison for ownership of weapons either.  We don’t like the controllers any more than you do.  But be careful what you wish for.  When I say we don’t like the controllers, that also means we don’t like their agitators and instigators and believe we have rights against their methods and intentions – without interference from the controllers.

It’s fascinating to me that this country is finally figuring out what the second amendment is all about.