Gun Ownership

I have been wrestling with this topic for several days. The Washington Times reports that the Supreme Court tightened restrictions on gun purchases.
The Supreme Court case involved a former police officer who thought he could get a discount on guns, and offered to buy one for his uncle. He bought a Glock 19 and listed himself as the buyer, clearing a federal background check. He then transferred the gun to his uncle, again done through a federally licensed dealer, clearing a background check in compliance with state law. But federal prosecuting authorities said that he violated the law, since he wasn’t the true purchaser.
The Supreme Court sided with the federal prosecutors and said that the government can be strict in trying to weed out potential “straw” buyers who plan to traffic the weapons. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion and said “No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun’s purchaser — the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer”.
My first reaction was that of annoyance. I felt that in ruling on this case, the US Supreme Court was still attacking the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a simple statement reading as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Notice that the part concerning a “well-regulated militia” is given as a justification for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not say that private gun ownership requires proof that the weapon will be involved in a militia. In other words, the absolute meaning of the separate Second Amendment is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that such right should not be infringed.
“Infringed” means some hindrance imposed by laws or regulations from the federal government, state government or municipalities. The realistic aspect of infringement is that all forms of government have been involved, through such technicalities as licensing, passing background checks, limitations on areas where guns may be carried, etc. The latest infringement is the case of the police officer buying a gun for his uncle. From the point of view of the Second Amendment, the police officer can do that, and the fact that the Supreme Court says he cannot is an infringement contrary to the Second Amendment.
From that position I started to investigate within the Constitution whether members of the Supreme Court could be impeached. There is no clear statement, such as that concerning the President. There is only an implication that it could be done.
In subsequent open conversation, I was exposed to a second opinion. This came about by direct consideration of whether a person should be walking around the mall with an AK-47 and whether a mentally deficient person had the right to own a portable atomic weapon, if or when any such weapon ever existed.
In considering that aspect, it became clear that the written Second Amendment to the Constitution is insufficient in the context of modern society. This does not mean that the Constitution and the first 10 amendments should be basically abolished because it is outdated, as some liberals propose.
The best approach appears to be to judge the Constitution as a basic document always with the possibility of updating by the built-in procedure of establishing further amendments. For example, if it is thought that the Second Amendment is insufficiently written, as I now believe it is, it can be revised and updated by Congress with an additional amendment.
The fact that it has not been considered for amendment seems to be primarily based upon extreme differences of opinion within the society. Many believe that any citizen should have an opportunity to own a firearm; unimpeded by any form of government, as I had initially believed. Others believe that no citizen should own a firearm. This leaves Congress in a state of indecision as to how to proceed with respect to the desires of its constituency. The situation is similar to public opinion and lack of legislative action by Congress on abortion.
Since Congress has been unable to establish details which would better explain the conditions of gun ownership, the Supreme Court must deal with the limited information which it has. That includes the Second Amendment as written along with current practices in situations within our society. It may be that the Supreme Court generally has a mindset to eliminate gun ownership by individuals, but there is no proof of that. Until Congress establishes another amendment on gun ownership, which is likely never to happen, the Supreme Court is obviously free to establish what many may consider further infringements of ownership.