ai express – State Senator Patty Kuderer, a Democrat from Bellevue, recently proposed a bill that would require gun owners to obtain liability insurance. However, during her defense of the bill, she inadvertently made a case for its clear unconstitutionality.
Senate Bill 5963 aims to prevent accidental gun violence by providing incentives for the proper storage of firearms. However, according to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in 2022, which sets the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of gun restrictions, Kuderer’s bill would not withstand judicial review. Even watching the movie “My Cousin Vinny” would equip someone with enough knowledge to understand that the majority decision renders the law unconstitutional. Surprisingly, the state senator, who is also an attorney, referenced Bruen and the Second Amendment to support the bill.
Kuderer’s arguments lacked persuasiveness as she consistently made claims about Bruen that contradicted the majority decision.
Jason Rantz offers further insights: Democrats are attempting to financially cripple gun shops by imposing excessive fees that are nearly impossible to overcome.
Patty Kuderer doesn’t understand what she’s saying
During a committee hearing on January 29, Kuderer made some opening remarks where she presented two key points. Firstly, she discussed the necessity of the bill, and secondly, she addressed its constitutionality. However, it is evident that Kuderer lacks a thorough understanding of the legal arguments she is putting forward.
According to Kuderer, the intention behind Washington’s requirement is to minimize the potential dangers and financial burdens associated with gun accidents. She believes that this bill successfully accomplishes these objectives without infringing on any Second Amendment rights. Kuderer clarifies that the requirement does not impose restrictions or regulations on how individuals can possess or carry firearms. Instead, it solely emphasizes the necessity of obtaining liability insurance.
The provisions of this bill are truly remarkable as they exert complete control over the way in which we can possess and carry firearms.
If you choose not to acquire insurance and fail to keep a written copy as proof, you would be in violation of the law. Furthermore, why is it perceived as compromising our Second Amendment rights to pay a monthly fee for insurance that allows us to exercise a constitutionally protected right? The Court has made it clear that the Second Amendment inherently guarantees our right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. In other words, we have a fundamental right to defend ourselves with a firearm.
Did Kuderer even read Bruen?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. Bruen, with a majority vote of 6-3, has established a significant precedent in determining the constitutionality of regulations on the Second Amendment. This ruling introduces a fresh legal framework for evaluating such regulations, with a central inquiry being whether the regulation aligns with the historical context of the Second Amendment during its ratification.
Kuderer stated that she believes the legal framework “complements” her legislation, anticipating that Bruen would raise this point.
“The significance of addressing public safety concerns in firearm regulations is highlighted in the recent Bruen decision,” Kuderer argued. “By mandating gun owner liability insurance, we can enhance public safety by ensuring that individuals who choose to own firearms are financially prepared for the potential risks associated with gun ownership. This approach strikes a fair balance between upholding Second Amendment rights and implementing a reasonable regulation that serves the broader public interest.”
Bruen does not perform the task described by Kuderer, but rather does the opposite. It fully rejects the notion of combining history with means-end scrutiny, as suggested by Kuderer. Moreover, it explicitly denies the use of a balancing test that weighs public safety concerns against Second Amendment rights.
The decision in Bruen references Heller, another significant ruling that played a crucial role in solidifying our Second Amendment rights. The Court emphasized that the criteria for interpreting the Second Amendment are based solely on the text and historical context.
Is Kuderer’s bill ‘rooted in history’?
According to Bruen, being rooted in text and history means that a regulation is constitutional if it aligns with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. This reasoning is based on the Court’s decision in Heller.
“In the case of Bruen, Justice Thomas stated that according to the Heller decision, if the Second Amendment applies to an individual’s actions, then the Constitution assumes protection for those actions. Therefore, any regulation on firearms must align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the country,” Justice Thomas wrote.
According to the court’s majority opinion, they explicitly state that case law does not endorse a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the context of the Second Amendment.
There is no historical context where a government-mandated monthly fee, whether from insurance or not, was ever implemented. The concept of charging a fee to exercise a constitutionally protected right was considered repugnant and was abolished in 1964 with the ratification of the 24th Amendment, which aimed to eliminate poll taxes. It is worth noting that the “right to vote” is not even explicitly mentioned in the constitution, unlike the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Jason Rantz has more to say on the matter. According to him, Tacoma officers are “disgusted” by their chief’s statement and they fear that it could lead to the extinction of the police force.
What is Kuderer’s strategy here?
Kuderer proceeded to assert the constitutionality of the bill without offering any substantial legal reasoning, as if simply declaring something constitutional is a valid approach.
Kuderer’s understanding of Bruen appears to be either a complete misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to deceive. Both possibilities should be taken into consideration. When asked by The Jason Rantz Show on KTTH, her office did not provide an explanation of the basis for her understanding of Bruen. It seems that her arguments were based on a superficial reading of the majority opinion and a reliance on the dissenting opinion.
Her shoddy arguments, to be honest, hold no significance.
Democrats are determined to strip away gun rights, and they rely on media that is either uncurious or shares their viewpoint to shape the issue in their favor. They frequently pass legislation that they know is unconstitutional, showing a disregard for the rule of law. They are hopeful that they will find a partisan judge who will rule in their favor, especially in Washington state where this is more likely than not. This strategy allows them to continue fearmongering around guns, blaming MAGA extremism when their unconstitutional actions are overturned by the highest court. They also continue to gain support from far-left voters who are willing to sacrifice a constitutional amendment they do not support or fully understand.