New gun rulings could invite the next Buffalo

On May 14, an 18-year-old apparent white supremacist opened fire in a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y., police said, killing 10 people and wounding three. The day after this terrorist attack, Californians awoke to a gun-fueled massacre closer to home. Allegedly motivated by a hatred of Taiwanese people, a man shot up a church in the Orange County city of Laguna Woods, killing one and injuring five. This town now joins an ever-growing list of American cities to suffer from hate-incited mass shootings in recent years, from Charleston, S.C., to Orlando to Pittsburgh to El Paso, Texas, to San Bernardino to Oak Creek, Wis.

Until last week, California had laws on its books that prohibited teenagers from buying semiautomatic rifles — the go-to weapon of mass shooters, including the Buffalo suspect. Yet just days before the Buffalo terrorist attack, conservative judges sitting on the federal appeals court that covers California struck down the laws.

Their decision imperils a constellation of gun safety regulations. And it could worsen gun violence in California, including attacks fueled by racism.

The California gun laws in question arose from tragedy. In 2018, a 19-year-old killed 17 people with a semiautomatic rifle at a high school in Parkland, Fla. A year later, another 19-year-old (motivated by a racist ideology similar to that of the suspect in the Buffalo mass shooting) killed a congregant and injured three others with a semiautomatic rifle at a synagogue in Poway, near San Diego.

These tragedies spurred California lawmakers to restrict sale of semiautomatic firearms to people under 21. And for good reason. Men between the ages of 18 to 21 commit a disproportionate share of the gun violence in America. Cognitive

scientists have shown that the parts of their brains that govern judgment and impulse control are not yet fully developed. California’s modest laws addressed this elevated risk of aggressive and violent outbursts.

None of this mattered to the two conservative judges (both appointees of President Donald Trump) who invalidated California’s laws. Judges Ryan Nelson and Kenneth Lee rejected common sense to adopt an absolutist reading of the Second Amendment.

Their legal reasoning was curious. In his majority opinion, Nelson claimed that California’s laws had to go because “America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army.”

Huh?

The Revolutionary War was fought with muskets and cannons, not AR-15s and automatic weapons. And even if the Continental Army had used modern guns against the British, so what? Nelson did not explain why colonial practice trumped decades of court rulings upholding age-based regulations on firearms. Or why social practice in the late 1700s matters more than lives in 2022.

Nelson further criticized California’s laws because “able-bodied men aged fifteen and older were compelled to possess personal arms” in “medieval times.”

We, of course, no longer live in the Middle Ages, and California’s laws should reflect that. Judge Nelson’s logic also suggested that a future court could hold that those 16 and 17 will be permitted to buy semiautomatic guns — an alarming position championed by many gun rights groups.

There is a larger point to be made here about originalism, the method of constitutional analysis displayed in Judge Nelson’s opinion. In the late 1700s, the founders wrote a dynamic Constitution that allows for growth and progress. They did not write an ossified contract that forever binds future generations to an antediluvian past. For modern society to function, the Constitution must be interpreted in light of contemporary values and imperatives. Not those of “medieval times.”

Lee’s concurring opinion was equally troubling. He defended striking down California’s laws because “only a tiny number of people abuse their rights and wield guns for unlawful violence.” These words are cold comfort to victims of gun violence in America, where studies show the gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income nations. For those ages 15 to 24, it is 49 times higher.

During 2022 as of May 19, America had over 200 mass shootings that killed 216 and injured 872, according to the Gun

Violence Archive. That’s hardly a “tiny number.”

While troubling, the opinions of Judges Nelson and Lee are unsurprising. They reflect the triumph of politics over law, a shift catalyzed by Trump’s presidency. As a candidate, Trump promised to rollback gun control regulations. Gun groups spent handsomely on political contributions to make it happen. In 2016, for example, the National Rifle Association doled out $50 million — over 96% of its 2016 election spending — to support Trump and six Republican Senate candidates, according to OpenSecrets.

President Trump delivered. He nominated judges with strong backing from the NRA and other pro-gun organizations. The Senate swiftly confirmed them. Now, ensconced on the federal bench with life tenure, these judges are invalidating popular, blue state laws that keep people safe.

Judges Nelson and Lee are part of this ideological push. So, too, are conservative justices on the Supreme Court, which President Trump lurched right with his three appointments. This term, the Supreme Court is poised to strike down a New York law that restricts carrying guns outside the home. Expect conservative judges to slay even more gun regulations in the years to come.

California voters and politicians care about preventing the next Laguna Woods or Buffalo. When will conservative judges?