On my bicycle ride I pondered the quandary of how seemingly honorable employees of .gov could rationalize doing unconstitutional deeds. I came to the conclusion there is a balance that must be maintained by them in order to keep their jobs.
This is a pro gun forum. When some of our .gov employees say that 2a permits reasonable restrictions it is because they are faced with the choice between quitting over principle or rationalizing that if the supremes let some of these laws stand, then they must be OK.
They say to themselves, "locking up this guy because he made a false statement on a 4473 seems wrong, since there should be no infringement in the first place. The 4473 should not even exist." (Kitten stompers don't apply here)
This is all a defense mechanism which allows them to sleep nights.
Their personal opinions (which are probably correct) are fallible.
Mortals are fallible. Thus they will permit the opinions of the supremes to reign, since, the supremes are infallible.
Trouble is, the supremes are mortal and just like a million monkeys with a million typewriters will eventually type the works of Shakespeare, the supremes will eventually make a mistake. Can you say, "Dred Scott?"
I try to believe that ATF does not LOOK for agents that like to stomp kittens, but that a few slip through the psych testing. I like to believe that .gov employees are trying to do a good job and when faced with the obvious contradictions between law and the constitution they rationalize and say to themselves, "Hey, the supremes said it was OK."
I am essentially an unemployable person. I have quit more than 2 jobs over my perception of my employers non ethical activities. I, however, am blessed to be in a line of work which permits me to be self employed.
.gov employees which have mouths to feed and bills to pay have to make the choice between what is constitutional and what is extraconstitutional and when the 2 collide, they let the supremes take the heat.
Although I understand WHY they do it, I will not let them off the hook.
Like in Article 92 of the UCMJ, just because it's an order doesn't mean it has to be obeyed. They gotta decide whether it's lawful. It's their DUTY to disobey an unlawful order.
Trouble is...there is nothing in .gov rules which permit or require disobeying the orders just because they are unconstitutional. They have a tough row to hoe. I understand.
I could never be a .gov employee. I could not sell my soul for a buck.
Flame away.
You also summarized my position pretty well.