At bottom, the Constitution requires sensible and effective regulation of guns that respects and upholds this most fundamental right. Policies motivated by nothing more than discomfort with firearms, often born of a lack of experience, fall far short.
The 5-4 Supreme Court decisions on recent 2A items show that so much is hanging by a thread.
I enjoyed the article, but the author seemed a bit overly-optimistic.
I hope he's right.
I understand your concern... but the SCOTUS, no matter the makeup, is reluctant to overturn itself... always has been... It will "refine" parts of a law not yet decided... for now, common use, and individual right, and militia weapon, are our friends.
The Wall Street Journal is a conservative right-leaning paper... I would expect it from them... I would also expect the authors of the article would understand that regulated, as in "At bottom, the Constitution requires sensible and effective regulation of guns..." Is not the same as the definition of regulated in the Amendment...
Regulated as used in the Constitution meant to put in good order... not to restrict through regulations.
FYI: The editorial page of "The Wall Street Journal" is conservativwe, but the news is liberal. They actually have to keep separate offices because they do not get along.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!