Cartoon 883: Responsible

Many people do not realize a judicial ruling is seldom “black and white”. Courts such as State Supreme courts, Federal District Courts and the Supreme Court put a great deal of effort in the wording of their decisions. The crafting of the wording can indicate the decision does not set a precedent, narrow its applicability or bring clarity to other judicial cases and previous rulings.

Land mark cases should be approached with great caution and be narrowly defined. The ramifications may be far reaching with undesirable consequences. The ruling by the Supreme Court granting unrestricted rights to bear arms is an example. The addition of one word could have greatly narrowed the decision and retained State and local restrictions in the management of arms.

The Supreme Court should have inserted the word, “responsible” in the right to bear arms. That addition would allow local jurisdictions and States to define what is responsible in bearing arms. People that disagreed with regulation would have to present cases at a local or State level. Each specific issue would be decided on a case-by-case basis. It would be better than the wide open interpretation today.

Now you understand why judicial scholars view rulings with a fine toothed comb.