Although Congress has the constitutional authority to make laws, the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional, and thus unlawful. So, what happens when the Supreme Court rules that a law is unconstitutional, even if it is not actually unconstitutional or vice versa, declares that a law is constitutional even though the Constitution prohibits such a law? Is it even possible for the court to do this?
In the Heller decision in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The Second Amendment does not actually address a right of individuals to keep and bear arms outside of the context of a well-regulated militia.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
People, including justices who decided in the affirmative in Heller, who take the position that the Second Amendment extends to individuals outside of the context of a well-regulated militia, only focus on the second part of the amendment, and completely ignore the first part of the amendment that addresses WHY “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. The Constitution does not address, at all, whether individuals have a right to defend themselves in their homes, by any means. As the Constitution relates to guns, it only addresses them in the context of a well-regulated militia. That is it. End of story.
Individuals can defend themselves in many ways. They may choose to use a gun, a knife or anything available to them in order to defend themselves. However, the Constitution never took under consideration whether they could defend themselves with a gun or a knife or anything else.
Because in the Heller decision the majority extended a right to keep and bear arms to individuals outside of the context of a well-regulated militia, Americans are killing themselves and others with guns at a rate of nearly 40,000 annually, yet lawmakers cannot or will not regulate gun ownership and possession because Heller says they can’t. That it is unconstitutional.
So basically, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is ok for individuals to purchase guns and use them to kill other people. Of course, the killer can be prosecuted for using a gun to kill someone, but the person or persons who are killed, are DEAD. They are no longer with us. They have no more constitutional rights, because the right of someone to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense in their home superseded the right of those who were killed, to live.
Who is responsible for these deaths? Obviously, the shooter/killer is responsible. Is the shooter/killer the only person who is responsible? Does the gun manufacturer bear some responsibility? The gun seller? How about the justices on the Supreme Court who ruled that lawmakers cannot regulate the ownership and possession of guns in order to protect the lives of innocent men, women and children?