what are side effects of corticosteroids

McDonald

On the road right now, but here are a few thoughts about the decision.

Like Heller, this is a game-changing landmark. But we didn’t get where we are in a couple of years, and it’s going to take more than a couple of years to get back closer to where we should be.

However, sooner or later people are going to have to give up on the whole “the 2nd Amendment means guns for an organized government militia” thing. We’ve been telling them for years and years that it doesn’t mean that. The Supreme Court keeps judging that it doesn’t mean that. At some point critics are going to have to accept that it doesn’t mean that.

UPDATE: Here’s something else by Reynolds. It includes:

the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions have made a major difference. In particular, they have offset the gun-control community’s longstanding effort to “denormalize” firearms ownership — to portray it as something threatening, deviant, and vaguely perverse, and hence demanding strict regulation, if not outright prohibition. That effort went on for decades, and received much media support. Two decades ago, it seemed to be working.

But with the Supreme Court saying that it’s clear the Framers regarded individual gun ownership as “necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” that effort must be seen as a failure now. Gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is the new normal, and the Second Amendment is now normal constitutional law.

I was asked last night what I thought this decision would mean by the person who told me that it had been handed down. I responded that since I hadn’t read any details about it, I could only say that I thought it was good and though I doubted gun laws in many places would change overnight, this decision would change the playing field and form a new foundation that future cases (and laws) would be built upon. The key is to maintain the momentum and not lose focus just because it looks like things are going well.

Comments

  • GeekLethal says:

    I haven’t read the decision either, and frankly I don’t think I would get much out of it.

    But from what I’ve read about it, it still includes provision for regulation. So long as a municipality, county, or state doesn’t ban guns, it seems anything goes. Like, say, making licenses renewable annually with a $500 fee, or requiring homeowners to purchase extra insurance.

    Or, instead of banning ownership, just don’t issue carry permits like most of MA. Nothing prevents you from applying for a carry permit in MA, but if you live in a city you aren’t getting one- even if you’ve jumped through all the hoops. But, having gone through the hoops and gotten whatever permit your local chief says you are worthy of, you are free to buy whatever gun you like. Eh, if it’s not on the state’s list of banned guns- typically scary black ones with shoulder things that go up.

    No ban, no foul it seems.

  • Nadnerbus says:

    I think you have to give credit to the Internet too for demolishing the effort of the antis to “de-normalize” guns. Guns and gun owners were finally able to bypass the media and go right to the individual on the issue, and it made a world of difference. It’s a lot harder for the Handgun Control Inc. of the world to lie their way to more gun bans than it used to be.

    I wonder if this will open a slim chance to challenge the California AWB. Like Geeklethal said, they will probably still make it difficult to get one, but I’d really like to see that POS law thrown out.

  • David says:

    I think carry permits should be one of the next targets. The amendment specifically says “keep and BEAR arms”.

    There should be no requirement to have a License or a Permit in order to BEAR a weapon.

  • Steve says:

    GeekLethal, or anyone who knows, what is meant by “shoulder things that go up”? I’ve heard it before, but can’t remember the source. Thanks.

Comments Closed