Court’s gun rulings are intentionally stuck in past

The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision highlights its intention to return to the laws and interpretations from before any of us were born; restrictions on gun ownership cannot be based on reasons such as “public safety” that are not literally in the Constitution.

Later, Chief Justice Roberts wrote (State of the Judiciary) that “…we must support judges by ensuring their safety. A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear.” He thanks Congress, for passing laws to do that, and the people who execute the laws. Apparently, powerful people protecting themselves using laws and taxpayer money is good and necessary, while we are left to defend ourselves individually. In that direction lies the chaos and death that we see daily.

The conservative majority asserts that gun ownership restrictions can still be placed on law-breaking citizens while preventing that in many circumstances. The 18th- and 19th-century laws they value hardly restricted wife beating. So a law to disarm domestic abusers is “unconstitutional.” The court doesn’t explain why it’s constitutional for a person, who appears to be losing his mind, to amass a mass-murder arsenal. He may be law-abiding, until he’s not, and it’s too late to protect ourselves. Perhaps George Washington’s view could provide the historical motivation they need to allow us to restrict the bearing of arms: “Your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law. The people, put under good Officers, would behave in quite another manner (than the existing NJ militia), and not only render real Service as Soldiers, but would protect, instead of distressing the Inhabitants.”

Also not set in the Constitution: the number of Supreme Court justices. Since the court is dedicated to overturning modern practices, it should welcome a few more esteemed, “apolitical,” colleagues to the court.

— Kevin Raeder, Boulder