The Hypocrisy of Invoking 'Democracy' to Overturn Democratically Enacted Assault Weapon Bans
Source: Jacob D. Charles. "We found the most galling argument of the upcoming Supreme Court term.." September 16, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that gun-rights groups challenging assault weapon bans are being hypocritical: they say courts shouldn't second-guess 'the people's' decisions about gun safety, but then ask the Supreme Court to do exactly that by overturning laws that voters and legislators already passed. The author thinks the Court should respect democracy and uphold the bans, letting citizens continue to govern themselves on this issue.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should reject the challengers' Second Amendment claim in Viramontes v. Cook County and uphold state assault-weapon bans, because the challengers' invocation of 'democratic decision-making' to strike down these laws is self-contradictory and represents exactly the kind of judicial overreach they claim to oppose.
Premises
- The challengers argue that decisions about which weapons are too dangerous to possess should be made by 'the people,' not by courts.
- Yet the challengers are simultaneously asking unelected Supreme Court justices to overturn laws that were, in fact, enacted by democratically elected legislatures representing millions of citizens.
- More than 100 million Americans live in jurisdictions (11 states plus D.C.) that have enacted assault-weapon bans through ordinary democratic processes.
- These bans were passed by voters and legislators in direct response to mass-shooting tragedies, reflecting genuine deliberative democratic will.
- No federal appellate court upheld a challenge to an assault-weapon ban until after the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case, suggesting the legal consensus favors the constitutionality of these bans.
- The Founders did not intend for the judiciary to have unbounded authority to overrule legislatures' policy judgments balancing public safety and individual liberty.
- Judge Wilkinson's opinion upholding Maryland's ban exemplifies appropriate judicial humility in the face of representative government's authority to regulate dangerous technology.
Assumptions
- Legislative enactment of gun laws by elected representatives constitutes a legitimate expression of 'the people's' will.
- Judicial review of legislation is only appropriate in limited circumstances, and this case does not meet those circumstances.
- The Founders' intent regarding limited judicial power over legislative policy choices should guide contemporary constitutional interpretation.
- The motivations of the challengers (protecting individual gun rights) are less legitimate than the motivations of the legislatures (protecting public safety) when they conflict.
- The Second Amendment does not itself compel a particular outcome that would override the democratic process here—i.e., this is fundamentally a case about who decides, not what the correct policy is.
- Courts declining to strike down a law is meaningfully different from courts exercising judicial power, even though not striking down a law is itself a judicial decision.