Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution states the following:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Which is to say that any law passed by the Federal Government or any State legislature which is inconsistent with the Constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional, and therefore, not the supreme law of the land. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to determine if any given law or act meets the test of consistency.

I seriously question the integrity of some decisions made within recent years. One would hope that any given Supreme Court justice would have some regard for his or her place in history. One thing that should tend to keep them honest is that their opinions become part of the permanent record.   They should be very aware that history will judge them for their judgments.

Don Firth

P. S: Considering the heat usually generated by discussions of the Second Amendment, the intensity and volume with which people discuss it, the fact that this issue has been and will continue to be argued with great vigor—and—the fact that just about anything that can be said about it has already been said many times over, I'm afraid that if we use this thread to leap on this particular hobby horse and ride it to death, it will eclipse discussions of other, not so frequently discussed Constitutional issues which are especially important in the light of current events. Please?