Once you get to a full ban on weaponry, you have violated the core principles of self-defense that were never relegated to the government.
Today, in what appears to be another political, non-judicial, decision issued by the Pennsylvania Courts in the recent week, the Commonwealth Court, en banc, in a decision written by Judge Lori Dumas, with apparently no dissenting opinions, held in In Re: Appeal of The Gun Range, LLC that “there is no obvious textual link between the right to keep and bear arms and a right to sell them” and thus “there is no constitutional right to provide arms.”
The court went on to declare that since it “conclude[s] that the plain text of the Second Amendment does not presumptively protect Gun Range’s proposed course of conduct [i.e. the sale of arms] … an inquiry into the historical tradition of this Nation’s zoning laws is unnecessary.” The court continued that “we decline to extend Bruen to an implied right to engage in the commercial sale of arms because it is too attenuated from the right of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”
Really?!?! Prey tell how one can keep and bear arms, if the government can preclude, in toto, the sale of arms. Based on this ruling, it would seem that the court would hold that the government can ban ink, pens, pencils, typewritters, and printers and such would not be violative of one’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech….but I digress. And it is telling that the court does not want to address the historical support for such regulation, since it does not exist.
By Joshua Prince, Esq.
