Regarding the Supreme Court decision to ban gun regulations

The Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a broad right to carry guns in public. That eliminates the New York law. The NRA and gun manufacturers will now file more to obliterate more state and federal gun control laws. California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, where about a quarter of all Americans live will be forced to rewrite their laws.

The New York Times writes: 

The 6-to-3 decision again illustrated the power of the six conservative justices, all of whom voted to strike down the New York law, in setting the national agenda on social issues. The court’s three liberal members dissented.

The Second Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” States can continue to prohibit guns in some locations like schools and government buildings, Justice Thomas wrote, but the ruling left open where exactly such bans might be allowed.  

The share prices of firearms manufacturers rose on Wall Street, with Smith & Wesson climbing more than 9 percent.  

The majority opinion announced a general standard by which courts must now judge restrictions on gun rights, one that relies on historical assessments: “The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Commentators on NPR noted yesterday that the majority decision completely ignored the most inconvenient aspects of America's historical tradition of firearm regulation. This is an example of the now standard neo-fascist Republican tactic of ignoring, denying, distorting or downplaying inconvenient fact, truth and sound reasoning. That is a necessary element of the rigid ideologue's mindset. Convenient or not, facts and logic do not care about any ideology, political, religious or otherwise. But ideologues care so much that they easily rationalize the inconvenient into something easily swept aside.

In dissent, Breyer argued that “the court’s near-exclusive reliance on history is not only unnecessary, it is deeply impractical. It imposes a task on the lower courts that judges cannot easily accomplish.” And that impracticality is exactly what the neo-fascist Republican majority wanted. This highlights a critically important aspect of the radical right legal strategy to limit the scope of government regulation. By citing vague "principles" such as historical tradition, the radicals leave themselves plenty of room to expand the reach of their own vague ruling. 

The day is coming when most folks will be carrying a loaded gun and gun violence will increase. Then the Republicans will blame the Democrats and liberals for the violence. In response, who knows what the Democrats and liberals might do, if anything. One thing is sure, the executives at Smith & Wesson are breaking out the champagne while they watch the value of their stock rise along with the body count. And, those Republican politicians who take gun money are assured of a continuous flow of cash for service for decades to come.