Supreme Court's Hatred Of Democracy Can Scarcely Be Concealed

By emphatically supporting a “right to keep and bear arms” against government action at any level, the Supreme Court conservative majority displays a disgusting authoritarian streak to impose gun culture everywhere and anywhere, whether people particularly want it, or not. Talk about judicial activism!

I see no reason why communities can't impose rules on guns if they please, up to and including banning them. It's a democracy, after all. By insisting that democratic processes are null, the Supreme Court subverts democratic traditions everywhere.

No matter what these bosses-in-black-robes say, and no matter what the Constitution says either, there is no such thing as a "right" to guns. It is a chimera. It doesn't exist. It has no business being mentioned in the Constitution. Do you disagree? Then, from where does this supposed "right" derive? Natural law? Please! Do I have a constitutional right to knives? To poison? To WMD?

Repeal the Second Amendment!:

Five members of the Supreme Court on Monday assured state, county and city officials not to worry: the new decision protecting a “right to keep and bear arms” against government action at any level — local, state or national — “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” But the Court majority did not have any assurances for judges at every level, that they will be spared the duty of ruling on many forms of gun regulation that a legislature, county board, or city council has chosen to enact. And the Court gave those judges very little guidance, in its ruling in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, on how they are to analyze those laws.

The Court did not even rule on the constitutionality of the one law that was at issue — a handgun ban in Chicago — nor did it tell the Seventh Circuit Court what constitutional standard to apply in judging that law when the case returns there. That particular law’s fate, like that of so many others around the nation, now must await a new round in court.

...But where the new decision will be most significantly tested will be regulation, not prohibition, of gun possession or use. Without embracing everything that Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in one of Monday’s dissenting opinions (including his sweeping claim that the Court was sending lower courts off on a “mission-almost-impossible”), his opinion does come close to a fair description of some of the complications that will be featured in future lawsuits.

As Breyer noted, “countless gun regulations of many shapes and sizes are in place in every state and in many local communities.” He then catalogued some of the questions that will now arise as many of those laws are tested: “Does the right to possess weapons for self-defense extend outside the home? To the car? To work? What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense? Handguns? Rifles? Semi-automatic weapons? When is a gun semi-automatic? Where are different kinds of weapons likely needed? Does time-of-day matter? Does the presence of a child in the house matter? Does the presence of a convicted felon in the house matter? Do police need special rules permitting patdowns designed to find guns? When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstiutional ban? Who can possess guns and of what kind? Aliens? Prior drug offenders? Prior alcohol abusers? How would the right interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emergencies?…These are only a few uncertainties that quickly come to mind.”