High Hopes

You have probably heard by now that the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) have decided to consider the question of whether local laws in Washington DC are a violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Many of us who are RKBA-minded about the decision of The Supremes: If they rule that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right, it opens all sorts of positive possibilities for private ownership and usage of firearms. But, if they rule that the community can ignore that interpretation, the decision (depending on how it is phrased) could conceivably CLOSE more doors than it opens.

Those who are determined to restrict private ownership and usage of firearms are similarly, if oppositely, agitated. What if, they postulate, the DC gun ban is stricken down at the federal level? Will we see gangsters openly sporting fully automatic weapons? Will the Gun Nuts be allowed to have grenade launchers, artillery and bombs?

We can only guess that the question will finally shake down somewhere in the middle, but there is no guarantee that the final outcome will be as universally acceptable as a 'consensus'. The Supremes don't typically do consensus. They're hired to make decisions. These kinds of decisions are never, every popular with everyone.

What now?

Now the question has become a hot-ticket item for politicians. Michael Bane points out that Rudy G. has jumped on the bandwagon. Rudy uses the issue to show how determined he is to encourage SCOTUS to interpret the constitution strictly 'by what it is'.

And Fred Thompson has chimed in with a deeply intrinsic appreciation for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Some people are less than completely confident that the final ruling will make much difference. Even if the 2nd amendment is completely confirmed as an 'individual right', recent state laws in California point the way by which the gun-banners can attack ... not your right to own firearms, but your ability to purchase them. Whether the laws are thinly disguised as a 'safety issue' or 'a way to help us solve crimes', we continue to rediscover that a determined liberal can invent new ways to suborn state legislators to undermine our constitutional freedoms.

A direct attack on the Constitution was only the first step, and it has served their cause for decades.

When that no longer works ... the liberals still have high hopes.