For years I didn’t understand why someone didn’t just take a case all the way to the supreme court and overthrow all the anti-gun laws in the country. After all, what part of “…shall not be infringed” didn’t they understand? And the 14th Amendment made the 2nd Amendment apply to the states and all the lesser political jurisdictions as well. But that was thinking rationally and I didn’t understand that neither people nor law are rational. It was explained to me that the Supreme Court would never rule such that thousands and thousands of laws were suddenly null and void after being enforced for decades. We have to get out of this mess the same way we got into it–one step at a time. It was Joe Waldron that explained that to me. I was skeptical and didn’t really understand–it wasn’t rational. The law said, “shall not be infringed”. Therefore that is the way they have to rule, right? Wrong.
I started reading some of the ruling from the courts and then I understood. Just look at how the various courts have interpreted U.S. versus Miller (see also the short version from JPFO) and you’ll understand too. They used the most tortured ‘logic’ to arrive at conclusions that no rational person could support. This happened in case after case until a the weight of those precedents became a sturdy brick wall even though Miller lost his case by the slimmest of margins and defense errors (the defense attorneys didn’t show up in court and did not present any case) and the lower courts extrapolated from this over the horizon into never-never land. I am no longer skeptical. I now believe.
Yesterday the Second Amendment Foundation announced they are taking one of those necessarily tiny steps in the courts to regain our gun rights. The press release is here. The complaint filed in court is here. I wish them well.
The company where I work matches my tax deductible donations to 501(C)(3) organizations. My sole donation beneficiary for next year is the Second Amendment Foundation.