By Nathan Barton
Bloomberg tells us that the Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply in Maryland or Florida, based on two very recent decisions. “The U.S. Supreme Court steered clear of the intensifying [sic-NAB] gun debate after the mass shootings in Nevada and Texas, turning away two appeals from firearms advocates, including one that sought a constitutional right to own a semiautomatic assault rifle. The justices, without comment Monday, left intact a ruling that upheld Maryland’s ban on assault weapons [sic]. In a separate case, the high court refused to require Florida to let handguns be carried openly in public.”
In other words, state law trumps both the freedom given us by God AND the freedoms supposedly guaranteed by the US Constitution. According to the FedGov judicial system.
Of course, I must first point out that anyone who counts on the nine Nazgul to stand up for the cause of liberty is naïve and probably just plain stupid. They work for government – and they fear public opinion and political opinion as much as any other bureaucrat or politician does. And, when you get right down to it, they are lawyers, a profession blessed by the very few of its membership who are honest and smart and have ethical and moral standards.
But again, what did we expect? These men and women do not want to rile people after the recent attacks and murders in Nevada, Texas, Tennessee and elsewhere. No, not the ordinary people, but the political and media elite. And Bloomberg (like its founder and namesake) hates and (probably) fears guns – or at least guns in the “wrong hands.” So when it publishes that the gun debate is “intensifying” it is not telling the truth. It is not the gun debate that is getting more intense: it is the hype about guns that is growing larger and larger. The third branch of the FedGov does not want to come out in any sort of opposition to that growing hype – and they know that if they were to rule honestly on these cases, it would greatly anger the hoplophobic and hoploclastic powers that be in media, education, and the economy.
And of course, Maryland is nearly as close to home for these Nazgul as DC itself is. It was no surprise that the Heller decision did NOT clearly state that ALL DC restrictions on gun ownership and carry were unconstitutional. Do you think these nine (and their staff) really want people NOT working for or with them to be carrying weapons, concealed or openly, on the streets and sidewalks around the Capitol and the Supreme Court’s digs? Certainly not in a land where so many judges and magistrates peer fearfully out the doors of their courthouses to see if the coast is clear before they scurry furtively to the safety of their cars. Nor in a land where the unjust decisions of wicked judges can drive even the most calm and peaceful of men or women to seek to defend themselves with violence.
Fortunately, there is a way around this – actually two. Both used in state after state. The first is, of course, the political solution: get the legislature in these states to change or use initiatives to change. (More likely, admittedly, in Florida than in Maryland.) More than one state has overturned stupid and unjust laws by repealing them at the ballot box, either directly by initiatives or indirectly by firing the scum who passed them.
The second is the more difficult in many ways, because the judiciary is not the only fearful sector of our population. To IGNORE the unjust laws: both in the jury box by refusing to convict people of violating immoral laws, and in the street by carrying anyway. I’m not talking about the sort of tilting at windmills that several people have in Colorado, one at a time (see this story) even though they eventually won. I’m talking about large numbers of people openly carrying on a daily basis, in groups too numerous to be quietly arrested and abused. In other words, making it impossible to enforce a law which disarms people and makes us more vulnerable to attack. Only one in ten thousand (if that) will ever get a chance to stand up for gun rights in a jury; almost anyone (at least in states like Florida and Maryland) can stand up by simply carrying.
(I am also not talking about Texan-style “open carry days” where people gather armed to the teeth and with banners and flags and pro-gun (or anti-anti-gunner) tee-shirts and such. I am talking about going about your daily business, though in a group, armed and prepared to defend yourself and others. Whether it is “going to church” or going out at your local diner or shopping for groceries.)
But meanwhile, don’t think that saying the right “magic words” to a judge or the Supreme Court (or any of their minions) will restore your God-given liberty of being armed.