I don’t think there is anyone that believes the Supreme Court of the United States has been right in its decisions as to what the law is over the years. Those eminent nine justices sitting around in conference over a nine month period from October through June with their smart clerks have always been able to interpret the Constitution in such a manner that they pretend to tell us what provisions written in 1787 mean today even though what they said yesterday might have been quite different. They are also able to find things in the Constitution that no one ever thought existed there.
They tell us that in the gun area the law that governs there can be few restrictions on the use of guns. Thus we have situations where people can buy as many guns as they wish and can attach to them magazines that shoot 30 or more rounds off in a matter of seconds while carrying hundreds of other rounds which can be readily inserted into the gun to bring about the results we saw in the church massacre in Texas (26 people dead and 20 injured) or the country music festival in Las Vegas (58 people dead and 546 injured).
We say sorry to the victims of these shooting who are not dead, we add the same sorry to the families of those victims who died, we talk about prayers which somehow seem out-of-place when people who are praying ar gunned down for no apparent reason at all or even worse because the gunman had a dispute with his mother-in-law, and blame the gunman because he is violent (which is obvious) or because he is, as someone who occupies the nation’s highest office said, deranged.
Is it the person who called the gunman deranged or is it the Supreme Court that is deranged because they cannot see the Blue Whale flopping around in the middle of the room. The truth is these mass slaughters do not have to happen.
Yes, they can be prevented. One way would be to outlaw all guns not in the hands of law enforcement or military. But that horse has left the barn because I’m told there is a gun for every one who has been counted in the census as living in the USA namely over 300 million. So do we throw up our hands in prayer or do we try to do something?
In the Heller decision in 2008, the law that now governs the land with respect to the Second Amendment of which I hope to write more about, the majority decision was written by Justice Scalia (joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy). It examined the history of the Amendment. He took us on a trip back through Merrie Olde England. He told what the people thought about guns ( I think they were called blunderbusses derived from the Dutch words meaning thunder box). He explained the common law about guns. We learned how the protesting citizens had the need for guns to fight the king and all his men and what the learned old men had to say about them.
Suggestinging the Founding Fathers (FF) would have known all about that history Scalia went on to point out the the words, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” were merely introductory and should be pretty much disregarded and the latter part of the Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” was all that was important in the Amendement. I wondered why the FF even put the words in if they had no meaning. They could have easily written the last part without the first. Or, they could have just said: “Listen up! The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
But as I’ve often told you the law is what the judges say it is and what is the law today can change with the change of the judges. In Heller four justices disagreed with the majority. Had Kennedy gone the other way then we’d most likley not have had Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs. In effect, one justice cleared the way for those massacres to happen. Is that how a democracy should work?