Earlier today, 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg joined in on the criticism of his fellow candidate Beto O’Rourke, saying that his plan to confiscate some semi-automatic rifles is “playing into the hands of Republicans”:
CNN’s Jake Tapper: "Beto O'Rourke raised some eyebrows by saying 'Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47' at the debate… Did Beto O'Rourke say something that's playing into the hands of Republicans?"
Pete Buttigieg: "Yes."#CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/GnTMaPgchE
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 15, 2019
And now Beto is lashing out at Mayor Pete over it, including a gratuitous “s*it” thrown in for effect:
Former Congressman Beto O’Rourke has hit South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg via tweet twice today following Buttigieg’s appearance on @CNNSotu, where he said O’Rourke’s plan for a mandatory assault rifle buyback program is “something that’s playing into the hands of the Republicans” pic.twitter.com/18q4QKlWFX
— DJ Judd (@DJJudd) September 15, 2019
As for his plan to confiscate “assault weapons,” even CNN is throwing ice-cold water all of the Texas Dem:
Fact check: Could a President Beto O'Rourke actually confiscate assault weapons? https://t.co/dSmVOjGehu pic.twitter.com/RMhxCsj8D7
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 15, 2019
From CNN:
Because of precedent set by the Supreme Court, the widespread use and popularity of these guns would almost certainly present legal trouble for O’Rourke’s proposal.
In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment. It found that it did, holding that the Second Amendment protects guns that are “in common use” and prohibits ” ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
In response to questions about the constitutionality of his proposal, O’Rourke’s campaign told CNN that the confiscation of AR-15-style weapons would be legal, and cited Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion from Heller, that the regulation of “dangerous [and] unusual weapons” does not violate the Second AmendmentHowever, Scalia’s opinion states that the Second Amendment protects guns in “common use.” Given their prevalence, these assault weapons could fall under the definition of being “in common use,” and therefore be protected by the Second Amendment.
At least one expert believes that common use interpretation would carry the day. “There’s no dispute that these guns meet that definition,” Dave Kopel, gun rights scholar and research director of the Independence Institute, told CNN.
Recommended
It’s absolutely insane for Dems to get into a fight over this, but we do enjoy watching it happen.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member