Sequins, you listen to NPR. How does this scenario sound to you?
A Federal legislature, constitutionally empowered to legislate against the States, votes to restore at least some part of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A southern state, run by racists, for and on behalf of 'their' people, is worried about their rebellious suppressed minority being armed. The racists try to circumvent the Federal govt.
Should the will of 'the people', in the form of southern racists prevail?
In this case the minority is the Mohawk nation, not African Americans. The racists are French nationalists, not Bull Connor and cronies.
This is as close to a combined 14th amendment & 2nd amendment case as you will find in Canada. It is about the rights of the individual against the State, not about Federal oppression.
The Will of the People is a nebulous term, whenever it comes out of a politicians mouth it means 'We won 50% of the seats, plus 1, so whatever we want to do has divine right behind it.'
Often they are ignoring that the percentage of the citizens who voted for them was well below 25% of the actual qualified electors.
In the Canadian case, the Federal govt. twice went to the polls with the removal of the firearms registry as part of their platform. It was finally passed as a private members bill, rather than as a party sponsored bill. That's about as close to 'will of the people' as you will get these days.
But the political machinations needed to pass the law are irrelevant. Because the right to survive includes the right to self defense. The right to self defense is nothing without the means. Legislation that affects basic human rights should not be looked at through the lens of politics, but evaluated on whether it helps or harms the individual.
