Maybe we need to sit at the front of the bus

• Posted on 26 June 2017
• By Write Winger
• 0

"Take it to the Supreme Court," they said. "They'll rule in our favor," they said.

"Take it to the Supreme Court," they said. "They'll rule in our favor," they said.

But what if they don't take the case? "That won't happen," they said, "This is too big of an issue."

The best part about being a pessimist is you can never be disappointed or let down, but when things do go your way you can at least be pleasantly surprised. Such is the attitude you have to take when following gun rights legislation and litigation.

The highest ranking unelected government appointed lawyers in the so-called "land of the free" declined to hear a landmark right to bear arms case. The case, paraphrased poorly, is that people not only have a fundamental right to keep arms but to bear them as well, as in carry a loaded firearm on your person in public for lawful purposes. When a state or local government denies all abilities to carry, first by banning the ability to openly carry a loaded firearm as CA has done, then by the county sheriff not issuing a permit to carry a concealed loaded firearm, the right to bear arms has legitimately been infringed.

While this seems like a no brainer, believing or hoping the government would keep the government from denying fundamental rights isn't using the brains we were given either.

I do though appreciate Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch's dissent, which says in part:

"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent."

Since our very lives may depend on it, if gun owners suddenly made a conscious decision to carry anyway, to risk arrest than to risk needing protection and not having it, to sit at the front of the bus because it's what's right and not what's lawful, then that's what they're going to do.

And if I were to be on a jury tasked with convicting a person arrested and charged for exercising their fundamental right to bear arms without government permission, I would not convict.

If the highest court in the "land of the free" won't even hear a case let alone guarantee and uphold your fundamental rights, then this lowly blogger will.