So the Ninth Circuit Court chose to decide that Kalifonia's restrictive handgun carry laws are illegal. Liberals everywhere are crying....and the rest of us are smiling.
But I have to ask:
Where has the rule of law been for the past 40 or 50 years? Why now are the decisions like this, and Heller and McDonald being adjudicated in the way that they are? Why were these laws allowed to stand in the past?
Where was the Judiciary in the years prior to this? No one chose to sue because the political climate of opinion wasn't conducive to a favorable outcome for the pro-Second Amendment side....
So why have a judiciary at all if we can have courts who, with the changing of judges (who are, after all, human) who will rule one way on an opinion and the same (or similar) court choose to offer a different viewpoint at a later time?
Theoretically, our judges and court system should rule the same way each and every time....and once a ruling is made, that should be the law of the land.....But that isn't so. Arguments change, but moreso the makeup of the judges and their opinions. Yet opinions and biases SHOULDN'T be a part of a judgeship. Nor should it (theoretically) have a bearing on the decisions made.
Yet it does.
And if judgements like McDonald and Heller and the most recent one can overturn previous and lower courts decisions, have we realistically got true Rule of Law? Or do we have Rule of Current Opinion? Rule of Current Political Climate?
Are our laws really that mutable that depending on the political climate they can change so radically? Is a decision made by a lower court 30 years ago so easily changed today? And if a lower court's decision is overturned, should those judges be retained as Judges?
While i welcome these recent interpretations of our laws I fear that others of which I might not approve, can be overturned as well. We might not like those decision.
What I fear is instability in our way of life, caused by political opinion changes. Our laws should not be so mutable.