Alright... I'll bite. That's still on the legislature. They're the ones who write the laws, they change them when they want to. The second amendment was part of the bill of rights and one of the reasons the Constitution was signed was conditional on the bill of rights - however it's still and amendment. And amendments can be changed, overturned, or otherwise annulled (see the 18 and 21st). The supreme Court must have a justiciable case and there are all sorts of requirements regarding that (legislature also controls supreme Court jurisdiction based on their authority through some checks and balances) - the Supreme Court has so little do with the Dallas shootings that it's just absolutely unreasonable that they would go back and go to that length to overturn gun laws. For that matter, you could argue that drug laws gave rose to racial tension causing the problems in Dallas and if we had just allowed more freedoms rather than restrict them in the first place we wouldn't have this problem. - what do we do now? Repeat history and restrict freedom - Yeah that always works. But let's go back again to the gun laws and what the Supreme Court can do/could've done in the past. If the supreme Court could've prevented the Dallas shooting, it would've been a long fucking time ago - probably columbine would've been the first big one that the court could've reacted to. If they react now, to the Dallas shootings it won't reach the supreme Court for a few years with all the processes it would have to go through (I would think - they might could overturn the second amendment as unconstitutional... But that'd be difficult.) Okay, so let's go with the best argument - the supreme Court could've outlawed guns a long time before the Dallas shooting. What had happened since - body counts via plane crash (9/11), Oklahoma city bomber(he made the bomb out of fertilizer, folks), truck bombers, and just last night we had a normal ass truck drive through a crowd... I don't see how gun control would fix the problem. It's just not logical - not to mention the fact that even if the gun laws were overturned/changed by the legislature or the supreme Court - it would be such a nightmare getting the guns out of the population. Most people wouldn't give them up peaceably, whether it was peaceful or not, the govt. would have to pay fair market value for taking the property, etc. It would only cost a trillion dollars. The cartel would make up their lost weed profits with illegal arms transactions. Poor Canadian hunters/outfitters would be overrun with big game enthusiasts. Texas hog populations would just explode even moreso and you could watch crops, farms, golf courses, neighborhoods, and others get overrun. Then immigration and all the other shit storm would happen at once. Basically, the Supreme Court can't do fucking shit about a damned thing that happened in Dallas and it could've been a lot worse - thank God they used guns instead of bombs. We have the Internet now - everything is obtainable - materials and knowledge can be found with a few clicks. Guns are the best possible outcome because then people don't get creative. Creativity is usually what causes the most damage. Even the Columbine shooters knew a bomb was the best way to up the body count - a lot of people were very lucky that bomb didn't go off.