Ever since the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment, as granting virtually every person an almost unfettered right to possess an arsenal of automatic weaponry, this nation has suffered a bloodbath of mass murder on a daily basis. Invoking the rubric of "strict construction", the conservative majority of the Court has fashioned a constitutional test which makes it almost impossible for legislatures to adopt sane laws protecting against gun violence or allowing lower courts to uphold such measures.
According to Justice Thomas and his cohorts, if there is no evidence that the founding generation adopted such regulations they cannot pass constitutional muster. The absurdity of that approach is self-evident. The founders were dealing with muskets, not machineguns and mass murder was limited to warfare; it was not a fact of daily existence.
Now the Court is about to make a new ruling that will either enable gun violence to spin further out of control or allow for some enforcement of sensible gun regulation. The issue: can a state prohibit a domestic abuser from possessing firearms? How do you think this Court is likely to decide?
No comments:
Post a Comment