To Keep and To Bear

     The gauntlet has been thrown down. "[T]he right to keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment belongs to individuals and not, as some have argued, only to National Guardsmen or members of government-organized "militias." "The phrase 'the right of the people, . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." "The wording . . . also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it." The metal is not in the whole, but in the last sentence.
     It is a sad commentary on our government that the last statement quoted from Judge Laurence Silberman, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, rings so glaringly. One would expect the rights of the individual to have been, and to be protected, continuously, by our government. The opposite, in fact, is the case, as decisions such as Kelo make very clear. The idea behind Justice Silberman's decision, the paradigm (if a return to a previously understood concept can be called such), if you will, of Individual Right predating, and paramount to any governing bodies' will, can be construed to be true at any level, Federal, State, and Local, and is a resounding return to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", and it will be up to the courts to uphold that position. Now, it is a question of whether the constitutionally sound decision made by Justice Silberman will be upheld in review, or whether, if overturned, it will be heard by The Supreme Court.
      The ramifications of such a shift are sweeping, but there is still far to go. The idea reflects upon free speech and personal activities in almost every possible way. We have become such a litigious society, the very possibility of causing offense sends chills down the spine, and brings lawyers out of the woodwork. And we're not talking libel or slander here, only the idea of dislike. "I don't like what you said. You've offended me, and I'm suing!" That's all it takes, anymore, to get in serious trouble. In fact, a young man was recently charged (as reported in the Chicago Tribune) with disorderly conduct by police, and forced to attend a different school, simply for writing an essay in his high school creative writing class that his teacher found to be "violently disturbing", but "not directed toward any specific person or location." Sounds like the definition of a vaguely written horror or science fiction novel. Regardless of what was written, if no threat was made, where's the crime? Since when is the right to express oneself without physical violence trumped by the right of another person to not be disturbed or offended?
     The PC pendulum seems to have reached its zenith, and we can only pray that its return will be a quick one. Until then, people who write stories, or wish to own a handgun or two, or see the need to call attention to stupidity, will all have to be careful a little while longer. 'Til then, like Puck, if we offend, we'll have to make amends.