The habit of overeating at Thanksgiving can have consequences
“Without doubt,” answered one observer when asked about today’s initial Supreme Court hearing of the now often discussed case of the NY Rifle & Pistol Association’s lawsuit against New York City’s attempt to keep law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their homes. There’s hardly a dedicated gun owner in the country that hasn’t known about today’s upcoming hearing and how, it is hoped, the Supreme Court will go far beyond the immediate wishes of New York City’s gun owners and begin addressing the panoply of recently-in-place laws designed to do just one thing: make it impossible for any American, constitutionalist or not, to live or die by the sword.
Overbearing gun control such as is found in those overly protectionist states like New York, California, Washington state, New Jersey, Massachusetts, others, that have passed laws governing magazine capacity, functional MSR components, purchasing ammunition, and the use of the ballot initiative tool to take the high road towards total gun confiscation in America, may have finally approached the last sip of the elixir that is left in the anti-gun bottle.
The prospect, at least in the minds of the pro-gun community, is that the SCOTUS will finally discover that today’s introductory hearing needs to free itself from the exclusivity of the NY gun group’s legal parameters and begin addressing the banging noise on the other side of the gun debate wall that seemingly without letup, continues to cloak itself in the dishonest wrappings of “gun violence” in order to fool non-gun owning Americans that, sooner or later, someone with a gun will come to kill them.
According to census figures there are 327 million Americans spread out across the U.S. Of that number, about 43%, or 140,610 million are gun owners currently codified by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the ascension to Heller in 2008 he side-barred the document to insist that some control over guns were “not unlimited.” While legal scholars have concluded – based on debate within the SCOTUS’ halls – that Scalia mentioned “machine guns,” for instance, he was addressing the lethality of multiple firing barely without stopping of hundreds of rounds of ammunition per war use to kill as many enemies as quickly as possible that were returning fire. Scalia added other explosive devices as well, but he did not specifically include semi-auto handguns and rifles. In one of those broadcast commercials that shout about the giddy “here’s what your credit card issuers don’t want you to know about,” as if there were some secret handshake between a maker’s product and its retail seller, the gun violence – sorry, we meant ‘gun safety’ – groups play the game of foisting an anti-gun initiative on the unsuspecting voter who knows nothing about guns except what the anti-gun side tells them. And what they are told is that over 140 million gun owners are a threat to national safety and said gun owners must therefore be legislatively controlled.
Now, however, comes the backlash. There are five conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. One, Chief Justice John Roberts, has been suggested as a possible “swing” vote, meaning he might not always side with the four hard rock conservative justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But even Justice Roberts is aware that Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse called the Roberts-led SCOTUS “sick.”
“The Supreme Court is not well, and the people know it,” Mr. Whitehouse argued in his brief. “Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.” “To heal,” of course, means to morph itself into the gun control SCOTUS.
One could almost hear the squeals coming from Brady, Giffords, the Demanding Moms and other political misfits.
The SCOTUS is never without surprises, however, and what they end up affirming may not please either side of the gun debate. But one thing is sure: gun owners never waver in their dedication to the Second Amendment. Nor the First Amendment, either. That’s something the gun controllers might have to learn the hard way.
Comment on this article on our Facebook Page.