Straw dogs

The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun and fill out the paperwork.

Wayne, for example, asks if this means he can't buya weapon for his children or grandchildren and must buy them a gift certificate instead. Well, yes, Wayne, it means exactly that. The case the court ruled on involved a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firewarms.

Wayne and Larry both talk about government overreach (Wayne says "runaway overreach" that might never be undone), and here I take issue a little. It's true that overreach is a big problem, by all three branches in any number of areas. But on the specific of the Supreme Court and guns, I think we've been doing pretty well lately. It wasn't so long ago that the court deemed the right to bear arms an individual one, never mind all the hot air about militias, and this anti-gun ruling seems to be the exception rather than a piece of an overall trend.

But eternal vigilance is a must. Here, for example, is Hillary Clinton: