Gun safety advocate Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, discusses the potential consequences of pursuing originalism in gun rights cases, the connection between domestic violence and guns, and the need for evolving gun laws. The podcast also explores the influence of court decisions on gun regulations, the impact of exposing gun lobbying groups, and the correlation between strengthening gun laws and reduced gun violence.
The Rahimi case before the Supreme Court explores the extent to which domestic violence should be considered in gun regulation, potentially determining whether individuals with a history of domestic violence can obtain firearms.
Relying solely on originalism in interpreting the Second Amendment disregards the evolving nature of society, the increased risk of firearms in domestic violence and mass shootings, and the lived experiences and safety of individuals today.
Deep dives
Rahimi case and the impact on gun rights
The Rahimi case, currently before the Supreme Court, raises concerns about the conservative supermajority's approach to gun rights. The case questions the extent to which domestic violence should be considered in gun regulation. This decision could determine whether individuals with a history of domestic violence can obtain firearms. The outcome of the case may have significant implications for public safety and intimate partner violence.
The dangers of using originalism to interpret gun laws
The case also highlights the flaws of relying on originalism, which interprets the Second Amendment based on the historical context of its framing. The historical perspective disregards the evolving nature of society and the increased risk that firearms pose in instances of domestic violence and mass shootings. By solely considering historical analogs, the court may ignore the lived experiences and safety of individuals today.
Importance of women's advocacy in gun safety
Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, emphasizes the importance of women's advocacy in the fight for gun safety. Women have historically been marginalized in discussions surrounding gun laws, despite being the majority of the voting public. Taking charge and electing lawmakers who prioritize gun safety is key to enacting meaningful change. Women's voices and votes have the power to sway elections and influence public opinion, ultimately leading to stronger gun regulations. The involvement of women in activism and political leadership is crucial in reshaping the current landscape.
The fight for gun safety and the power of collective action
Despite the challenges posed by court decisions and the influence of the gun lobby, there is still hope for progress. The collective action of advocates, such as Moms Demand Action, has already produced significant victories in passing gun safety laws. Continued grassroots organizing, staying engaged in local elections, and supporting candidates who prioritize gun safety are essential in the ongoing fight. Efforts to restore balance and integrity to the courts and expand the Supreme Court may also be necessary to counter the current conservative majority and restore gun safety measures.
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant—and potentially deadly—cases of the term - United States v Rahimi. The case, a follow on fromNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, has the potential to weaponize the court’s Second Amendment extremism against victims of domestic abuse and protect adjudicated abusers. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by gun safety advocate Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, to find out the potential real life-and-death consequences of pursuing originalism literally back to when women were property and muskets were muzzle-loaded. They also discuss why the right is so keen to pursue gun rights through the courts, rather than through the democratic process.
In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Jay Willis, editor in chief of Balls and Strikes, to discuss oral arguments in a pair of cases concerning First Amendment concerns when politicians block dissenting voices on social media, the Trump-related trademark t-shirt dispute that is barely SFW, and Justice Clarence Thomas’s personal luxury RV loan forgiveness program.