In late August, Virginia State Delegate Dan Helmer (D-10), who represents a portion of the Northern Virginia D.C. suburb of Fairfax County, took to Reddit for an “ask me anything” (AMA) question and answer session. Virginia gun owners will remember the New Jersey-native as the chief patron of Virginia’s ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines, which was quickly enjoined statewide. Others might know Helmer for briefly running for U.S. Congress earlier this year in Virginia’s ill-fated 7th congressional district that was created as part of state Democrats’ failed gerrymandering scheme. The wildly misshapen district became known nationwide as “the lobster” and would have had Helmer representing his fellow interlopers in Fairfax and Arlington Counties and misrepresenting Virginians all the way into the Shenandoah Valley.
Helmer may have anticipated a warm welcome on Reddit, but none was forthcoming. While modern Reddit may have a reputation with some as a left-of-center hugbox, the Redditors who participated in the Helmer AMA made clear that Second Amendment rights are fundamental to voters, if not politicians, across the political spectrum.
Throughout the event, the native-Garden Stater was peppered with questions about his enjoined gun ban.
A top question wisely pointed out,
the Second Amendment isn't exclusively a Republican issue. There are plenty of Democratic and left-leaning gun owners who support it. Do you think treating gun rights as inherently partisan has hurt Democrats' ability to reach those voters? Why do you continue to hurt your own parties [sic] ability to win voters over?
While gun politics has been turned into a partisan food fight, gun ownership has always been bipartisan. Polling from Pew Research found that one in five Democrats personally own a firearm, with almost a third saying they live in a gun-owning household.
The question also cited this Wall Street Journal item on the growth of liberal gun ownership.
Another top question asked,
As a father from Virginia who also has the distinct privilege of serving the country on active duty in Virginia, I have a ton of reasons to support you.
As a supporter of workers rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, wanting others to have similar access to the healthcare and educational opportunities my family is lucky enough to have through my service, and who wants a Virginia that's affordable for all of us, I have even more.
How exactly, however, am I supposed to reconcile all of that against the fact that you have sworn an oath to the constitution at least, what, three times throughout your military and political career- and still stake your entire political career on dismantling a fundamental right enshrined in our states [sic] constitution, as well as our nations [sic]?
Yet another question quoted Helmer’s introduction to the AMA and noted,
“Together, we are working to protect our democracy from Trump and the MAGA agenda.
That's why I passed the long-awaited bill to ban assault weapons, protecting our communities and our loved ones.”
Man, there must be an ocean between those thoughts connecting in your head lol.
In one of his responses, Helmer gave the standard political claptrap about his gun control measures and position, stating, “The gun violence prevention legislation I have carried is not anti-Second Amendment, nor am I[,]“ and, “I support our Constitution – every Amendment.”
In what narrow case Helmer may support the Second Amendment is unclear, as he went on to note, “We have seen an extreme Supreme Court distort the Second Amendment from its historical understanding.” Is Helmer suggesting that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms? The politician wasn’t clear.
In response to criticism of his Second Amendment positions, Helmer responded in part, “Reasonable regulations are Constitutional – even this extreme Supreme Court has said so.” Put aside the level of invasive gun control Helmer would find “reasonable.” The Rhodes Scholar is wrong on the law.
An astute Redditor helpfully responded with the case law and test established in NRA-supported U.S. Supreme Court case New York Pistol & Rifle Assoc. v. Bruen (2022).
To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
The Court has repeatedly rejected the more subjective interest-balancing approach that some lower federal courts used following District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
A sincere thanks to all the knowledgeable Reddit gun rights supporters who challenged Helmer on his anti-rights positions and confronted him with the facts and law. Gun rights supporters are encouraged to read the AMA by clicking here.
Will Dan Helmer take this feedback from his own Virginia party members to heart and moderate his position on attacking the Second Amendment? We suspect not, as it never had anything to do with Virginia or the wishes of his actual constituents and everything to do with the generic template of his party’s elites and donors.
More Like This From Around The NRA
