Is the gun weather changing? Going from ‘flying off the shelves’ to mostly cloudy?
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court balked when it could have considered any or all of a list of cases involving the Second Amendment.
“The Supreme Court wasted little time Monday making clear its reluctance to wade back into the national battle over gun rights,” USA Today reported. “After refusing to rule on a challenge to New York City gun restrictions because they were rescinded while the case was pending, the court turned away all potential replacements that would have given its conservative justices a chance to strengthen the Second Amendment.
“The justices had a long list of challenges to choose from, including several testing the threshold issue of whether guns can be carried in public nationwide, as they currently are in some 40 states. Other issues included bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and handgun sales,” USA Today continued.
Although some folks expressed feelings ranging from surprise to outrage, it really isn’t difficult to figure out what is going on. The Supremes are gun shy.
Historically, the high court has been reluctant to tackle 2A matters. Why? Because 2A is revolutionary and the high court represents the epitome of the establishment.
To fully understand what is going on, it is necessary to consider that the founding fathers were revolutionaries, which meant that what they did was revolutionary to the establishment of the time – the king and government of England.
Of all of the things the founding fathers did, 2A is the most revolutionary because it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Many have suggested that the Second Amendment is the guardian of all of the other amendments, as well as the Constitution itself.
Over the past couple of centuries, the U.S. has developed its own establishment and the Supreme Court is the arbiter in that arena. So, what we have here is a situation where the same high court that guards the establishment is supposed to rule on a revolutionary proviso that was originally intended to guard against precisely what the Supremes now are being asked to consider. Kind of like a red-headed stepchild getting a purple dye job for a punk hairdo.
It is most convenient for the established order when 2A can be ignored. That affords smooth sailing – more similar to the other protections of the Constitution because they all include cerebral concepts that lend themselves to pontificating, posturing and pondering. A gun is cold, hard steel in the hand and ammo is deadly when fired.
It is the precise reason that 2A exists that causes it to be the most avoided of the amendments. Jurists know full well that openly recognizing that 2A means exactly what it says will open a Pandora’s box that they would much prefer to remain closed. Efforts that suggest 2A doesn’t say what it means only confound the issue eventually because citizens either have the right to keep and bear arms or they don’t.
Certainly, there are justices on the Supreme Court who both understand the seriousness of the subject and who enthusiastically would welcome consideration of 2A issues. But for the time being, they have been muted by a predictable indifference of the majority, if not fear of an unwelcome outcome.
Given the unprecedented spike in the sales of guns during the current pandemic, especially among citizens who had never acquired a gun before, it looks as though what the high court does ultimately may be more academic than alarming.
Nobody knows how many guns are in private hands in the U.S. and estimates vary widely. Suffice it to say that it is a bunch and the numbers seem to keep growing at record pace. Extrapolate that out, and if virtually everyone has guns, then whether the guns are legal for them to own is pretty academic. They have them. Fact. End of argument.
That’s why all of this hubbub about gun control is more about control than about guns. It is about people control ultimately. After all, guns can’t do anything on their own except sit there being, well, inanimate metallic objects.
Which brings us back to the meaning of 2A. It is the right to keep and bear arms. Who has that right? Citizens, of course. So, the right is human. What that right involves is arms. It’s a human right to arms. Nothing new there because the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights, and those rights are human rights. In fact, they specifically limit government in favor of humans (individuals).
Often the anti-gun subversives spew out the lies that it is necessary to show “need” to be able to acquire, keep and bear arms. A right is not predicated on some kind of sliding scale that might have want on one end and need on the other. The right exists, period. Want and need are irrelevant.
Antis will do all they can to muddy the waters, hoping to fool the uninformed, the uncaring and the unconnected. It serves their purposes when the high court balks, because it affords them time to sharpen their lies.
Hence, when the high court bypasses its duties, it effectively rules in favor of the other side. There can be no middle ground when it comes to rights. They exist and need to be recognized at all times by everyone.
That is why it is so troubling that the Supremes balked when confronted with a long list of cases, all of which deserved their consideration. When the Supremes turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to such cases, they do the same for the Constitution and its Second Amendment.
It is one thing when government shirks it duties. It is another when the arbiters of Constitutional rights shirk their duty because there is no appeal beyond them – except, of course, via the people themselves, which would take the entire concept full circle.
In the end, it boils down to people, rights and guns. Free people have options. It’s time the Supremes recognized that.