Grassley must agree: The Supreme Court says we can ban assault rifles


Sen. Chuck Grassley scored one this week for the gun-haters.                  

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear an appeal of state laws banning military-style assault rifles. That means that bans in New York and Connecticut may stand, because the Supreme Court can’t decide much of anything these days. It is deadlocked between four liberal justices and four judicial activists posing as conservatives. Grassley refuses to give a hearing to President Obama’s nominee, whose judicial record looks more like John Roberts’ than Thurgood Marshall’s.

So the reason that the assault weapons bans will stand is because of Chuck Grassley and no one else. Garland could have voted his way. Or letting gays get married. That happened because of Grassley’s filibuster of justice.

Chuck Grassley is lining up with the gays, black mayors and soft-minded moms grieving for slain children. And here we did not know what the cagey old fox was really thinking.

Now we have the Supreme Court telling us that the Second Amendment, just like the First Amendment, has its limits.

The court told us in 2008 that you may arm yourself in your home for self-defense. Now the court is telling us that while you may arm yourself, you may not do so with an AK-47 or an AR 15 if you live in New York or Connecticut. The court has tacitly acknowledged that states and municipalities may allow you to have such a gun only if it is locked and unloaded except when blasting coyotes or having some relaxing fun plinking beer cans 30 rounds at a time, at a cost of 40¢ per bullet.

I have friends who went to law school in a hoghouse. They tell me that you can have any kind of gun you want and flash it wherever you want because it is in the Second Amendment. That is the amendment, like the First, that they have never read. If they did, they do not understand what a well-regulated militia is unless it involves chasing Mexicans back over the border so they can’t steal the jobs we won’t take. These Back 40 scholars are allowed to vote, which is one of the few but real downsides of democracy.

At least I won’t have to listen to their constitutional law lectures anymore, will I?

In fact, most of my friends talk more about their guns than their women. It is one of those facts of life regarding northwest Iowa. And you would not believe how right they can be when they make up their minds, which doesn’t take long.

Which is why it would be silly to bring this up again:

We should ban assault weapons in Storm Lake, cop-killer bullets and body armor for pedestrians. We should ban all weapons from the courthouse.

Some of you kids may remember Tom Vilsack. He was a lawyer and city councilman in Mount Pleasant many years ago when a maniac walked into the council meeting and shot the mayor to death. Vilsack became mayor, then state senator, then governor, and now is US Agriculture Secretary.

It can happen in Storm Lake.

It did in Sandy Hook, a village of the town of Newtown, Conn., population 27,000.

There are guns floating all over this town in the wrong hands.

We could clean it up. But we won’t. The Mount Pleasant slaughter happened 18 years ago.

The Buena Vista County Supervisors were asked by former Sheriff Gary Launderville to make the courthouse a weapons-free zone. The lawyers want it. The judges want it. The constitutional scholars felt they could not impinge on anyone’s Second Amendment rights and still get elected.

So they passed.

No Storm Lake City Council member will call for a ban on assault rifles. There are tons of them in town. There is no purpose for them in town. None. Other than to kill cops.

Why can’t we just get rid of them?

Chuck Grassley obviously thinks its okay. Isn’t that good enough?

Okay. It’s a silly idea. Shoot ’em up, boys. Get after them queers.