Public schools are failing us.

In his dissent on Heller vs. DC, Justice Stevens wrote, “The court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” Obviously, Justice Stevens does not believe that the framers of the Constitution made such a choice. One has to wonder how Justice Stevens ever got through high school history, much less made it to be a sitting Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The fact is, the Framers had every intent to “limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate” pretty much anything. That’s the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights (and, arguably, the Constitution as a whole). It limits what the government can do, by keeping it from treading on those things that the Framers considered to be fundamental, natural rights. Anyone who ever took a single American History course should have had that drilled into them. The people who were most involved with the founding of this country and laying the framework for its government were not at all interested in giving the government a lot of power to regulate anything.

A lot of people (most of them lawyers) will insist that a layperson (such as myself) isn’t really qualified to comment on the meaning of the Constitution, because laypeople aren’t trained to understand the law. The fact is, though, the Constitution is not written in technical jargon, nor is it constructed in such a way as to be unreadable (as many modern laws written by legislators and rulings written by judges are) — it’s pretty simple and clear, as any honest, half-educated person can tell you.

“…[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That seems pretty clear to me. Yet, Stevens seems to be saying that he believes that laws that effectively ban the ownership and carrying (the “keeping and bearing,” if you will) of firearms don’t violate the Second Amendment, which is absolutely crystal clear, using language that can’t possibly be mistaken. “…[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If he honestly believes that this is not supposed to “limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons,” Justice Stevens must have failed English as well as History.

To be fair to Justice Stevens, he isn’t the only one making the public schools look bad. Just take, for instance, Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, who must have failed Civics:

“It’s a big blow to those of us who believe in common sense gun laws,” Gov. Rod Blagojevich said during an appearance at a West Side community agency to announce a summer jobs program. “And as a result, it’s the wrong decision.”

Blagojevich would have us believe that the Justices made the wrong decision because they supported gun rights, which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court even does. The Supreme Court Justices, when considering this (or any other) case, had absolutely no right to consider whether they personally believed that individuals had a right to self-defense. They had no right to consider whether they personally believed that guns were fundamentally evil devices that caused murders. Considering the rightness or wrongness of a position has absolutely nothing to do with what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

This is Civics 101, kids. The Supreme Court’s job in the federal government is to rule on the Constitutionality of a law, not on whether they personally like the law or not. If a politician (such as Blagojevich) doesn’t agree with what the Constitution says, he has two options: 1.) work to change the Constitution, or 2.) Find a country whose foundations are more suitable. Passing laws that ignore or subvert the intent of the Constitution is illegal (and dishonest, besides), and is precisely what the Supreme Court is there to prevent.

I’m reminded of a scene from Duck Soup, in which Groucho Marx’s character, Rufus T. Firefly, is presented with a report from one of his underlings. “It’s perfectly clear,” he says. “A four-year-old could understand it. Someone get me a four-year-old. I can’t make heads or tails of this.” (Quote is from memory and may not be 100% accurate.) Someone needs to get a high school graduate (or even just a high school student — maybe those who are competing in the We The People competition, for instance) to explain the Constitution to Gun control activists, especially the parts about a.) the job of the Supreme Court, and b.) the Second Amendment.

Please note that I’m not saying that those who believe in gun control are idiots who should not have passed high school^[a]. Instead, I am criticizing those who believe that gun control should be (or even that it could be, legally) passed, even though it is in clear violation of the Constitution, without first changing the Constitution. Of course, these tend to be the same people who think it’s a wonderful idea to have judges legislating in many other legal arenas (see: homosexual marriage), so I’m not particularly surprised.

1. Though, I do wish those taking that position would review this data, presented in Dale Franks’ “Heller Wrap-Up” over at Q and O shows:

   According to the FBI, in 2006, Illinois—a state that has fairly strict gun laws—had a violent crime rate of 541.6 per 100,000. Meanwhile, down in gun-totin’ Texas—twice the population, but with very similar demographics—the wild-eyed cowboys managed to tote up a rate of 516.3 per 100,000.

   Indeed, similar rates carry through across the board:

   Murder:
   IL: 6.1
   TX: 5.9

   Robbery:
   IL: 185.3
   TX: 158.5

   Aggravated Assault:
   IL: 318.4
   TX: 316.4

   To be fair, TX still has the lead in forcible rape, at 35.6 compared to 31.8 in IL.

   Meanwhile, in DC:
   Murder: 29.1
   Robbery: 658.4
   Aggravated Assault: 789.1

   Although, DC is still a relatively genteel place for the ladies, with the forcible rape per 100,000 coming in at a Chicago-style friendliness of 31.8.

   Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn’t “guns”. Perhaps there’s some human factor that could explain these numbers. If only we could understand what it might possibly be…

   Despite all this, gun-control advocates often insist that gun control works, and that the gun ban in DC was/is actually keeping the crime rate low. [↩]