Use a Chicken - Go to Jail

            Last Tuesday the Supreme Court met to once again interpret the constitutional issue of our right to keep and bear arms.   No offense to Humanity but from what I’ve seen - we as a species shouldn’t be allowed to handle potato peelers and should never, under any circumstance, be allowed to conceal them.

            The evolution of our governing laws, in an attempt to keep up with the ever-changing needs of society is being forced and that forced change is the problem.  By that I mean technological advancements with respect to the information age, aerospace, and medical improvements should be and are stand-alone disciplines from human development.   With that in mind, developmental boundaries must be attached to issues of significance, such as gun control.

            Although the World around us is rapidly changing, we humans, with our petty jealousies, road rage, and our blatant lack of respect for our fellow man have not changed.   We surround ourselves with electronic gadgets, we sit and blink curiously at big screen televisions, while we cling relentlessly to our cell phones but the basic individual remains just that, a raw, very basic reproduction of what has always been - complete with standard frailties, insecurities and neuroses.

            Last Tuesday nine of our most learned and wise leaders met to discuss an issue that has been debated for the last 200 years.   This, in my opinion, is not a complex issue.  The chicken or the egg, now that is a complex issue for which a life-long debate is understandable.  But the right to keep and bear arms….  I’m thinking - not so much.

            We know at the onset that chickens come from eggs.  That statement, one would think, should end any and all confusion.  However, we also know the reverse to be true, that being – eggs come from chickens, - thus the conundrum.   As you can see, this is an issue that the Supreme Court could easily spend years debating.   

(Not to be confused with the Chicken Supreme, $3.48 at Taco Bell).

            These judges spend an eternity trying to interpret laws, written by someone else, from a different set of circumstances, in an all-together different time period.   Then they attempt to apply their interpretation justly to a current situation.  Perhaps a good example of this might be the following scenario, which was taken from an actual Supreme Court case.

~

            Late one night a farmer heard a strange noise out by the hen house.   He put on his farmer robe and slippers, grabbed a lantern and quietly walked out to see what was going on.

            Unaware of the approaching farmer, due to farmer slippers being very quiet and also because the farmer never bothered to light the lantern, the farmer’s Italian neighbor, Bess Scotti, was caught stealing chicken eggs. 

            Outraged at this, the farmer picked up a hen and threw it at Bess.   Although not very aerodynamic, the now airborne chicken struck the intended target.  The pointy chicken beak hit Bess in the temple, causing her to not only drop her apron full of stolen eggs but to also fall to the ground dead.

            As it came out in court, Bess Scotti had been adding Puerto Rican Rum to the chicken’s meal, believing it aided in egg production.  When the outraged farmer picked up the hen to throw it, he was unaware the chicken was loaded. 

            Although the murder weapon had been plucked and was bare of all feathers it was taken into custody and grilled, which was department policy at that time.

            This landmark case ended up in the Supreme Court, for although the farmer was at the scene and admitted to throwing the chicken, it was argued that because the chicken is considered a bird, once it had left the grip of the farmer’s hand it was free to exercise it’s own bird will as to direction of travel.

It was furthermore determined that any impaired chicken judgment as a result of the Rum was due entirely to Bess Scotti and not the farmer.  The only issue remaining for the courts was the farmer’s constitutional right to keep and bare chickens.

            Some many years after, a lawyer from Mule’s Breath, Montana, sited this case in defense of his client.  The judge on the case had to then interpret the laws as they are now, while applying the reasoning and judgment of this past case.

            I won’t go into detail for it was a grisly crime involving a potato peeler and several abandoned tots.   

 zc