This was a tough week for the flaming liberals who would use the U.S. Constitution as little more than a door mat upon which to wipe their metaphorical feet.
Whether by dint of politically motivated activist judges operating at lower levels, or through over-reaching state and local governments – always in liberal enclaves it must be noted – the Constitution was seen as a general guideline, open to wide interpretation in favor of denying those rights to political opponents.
But the Supreme Court knocked down a New York law that required proof of special need in order to receive a concealed carry permit for a gun.
Justice Clarence Thomas correctly noted that no other Constitutional guarantees put the onus of proving need for things (such as free speech or equal opportunity) on those looking to exercise those rights.
Alarmists began screaming immediately about a tone-deaf Supreme Court in view of mass shootings taking place recently. Headlines, such as one in the local rag, blared incorrectly “Supreme Court expands gun rights.”
No, the Supreme Court beat back attempts to infringe on rights. It is a substantial difference.
But word play is important, which is why pro-abortion types prefer being labeled pro-choice. More on that later.
Back to protecting the Second Amendment, the appeal to blind emotion on the part of those who would disarm law-abiding citizenry neatly ignores that already existing gun laws are being violated in these mass shootings, either by people illegally possessing the weapons, or having them on property where such things are explicitly prohibited.
It also ignores the plain truth that people using guns to commit crimes are not likely to be stopped just because they would need to break laws to acquire their weapons, either by deceit in the purchase process, by stealing said weapons, or by purchasing them illegally on the black market.
Yeah, the gun-control advocates argue, but making it more difficult will help. No, it won’t.
If the leftists need more proof that more laws don’t mean the problem goes away, consider burgeoning drug use even as various “wars on drugs” have been fought and lost judging by the results.
Many of these same whining liberals professing to be worried about the children when it comes to guns, see no problem with criminals fading in among the illegal immigrant surge at our southern border and gaining entry to this country, presumably to continue to be criminals.
I wonder how many children – or adults for that matter – they might harm? I suspect the number is much higher than those affected by mass shootings, yet this problem is ignored.
Almost on cue came news from Norway Saturday of a mass shooting leaving two dead and 20 wounded.
Initial reports say the suspected gunman is a 42-year-old of Iranian descent with “a long history of violence and threats.”
Said man was not concerned that his automatic weapon was illegal. Imagine that.
Also this week, as had been widely anticipated, the Supreme Court invalidated the Roe vs. Wade decision on abortion.
Despite the screaming headlines you might have read that the Court struck down legal abortion, it merely is a matter of the Court reminding the audience that it is a decision to be made by individual states not the federal government.
To repeat, those states wishing to allow pre-birth infanticide to continue are free to do so. Those state legislatures with a conscience are free to clamp down on abortions. It’s that simple, now.
Yet liberal alarmists have taken the decision to mean abortions are outlawed, and soon to follow will be such things as inter-racial marriages, gay marriages or birth control.
One dependable liberal media mouthpiece called the decision tyranny of the minority. It is not clear how he defines minority, but at last check majority or minority of public opinion is not a firm basis for legal decisions.
For example, at one time the majority of people in this country found slavery acceptable. I’d argue that majority was wrong, but our law-professor liberal mouthpiece apparently would have considered anti-slavery action tyranny of the minority.
Before either Pro-Second Amendment or Pro-Life people celebrate this week’s decisions, understand that the opposition will not be daunted by Supreme Court actions.
Already Congress and Joe Biden (the president who needs a written cheat sheet in hand to instruct him how to enter a room, sit down, and begin to talk – you can look it up!) have agreed on additional gun legislation.
The key aspect is so-called “Red Flag” laws, which free anyone who holds a grudge against a gun owner to declare them dangerous and thus allow authorities to confiscate the guns until that person proves they are not a danger.
The person making the allegations against the gun owner seems to have no burden of proof on him or her.
And pro-abortion types will lobby mightily to overturn the Supreme Court. Democrats will cynically use this as a rallying point in mid-term elections, hoping the people will ignore raging inflation, economic malaise and porous borders to vote in Democrats who have gone on record that they would pack the Supreme Court with additional liberal justices so that they might get their way with future decisions.
If you think the week’s Supreme Court decisions have ended the assault on the Constitution, you are sadly mistaken.
Sam Ross Jr's site 