News Flash: The Constitution Means What It Says - WSJ.com

My prediction? Because gun-rights groups like the NRA have so successfully prevented enactment of unreasonable gun laws, most existing gun regulations falling short of a ban will eventually be upheld. But more extreme or merely symbolic laws that are sometimes proposed – whose aim is to impose an “undue burden” by raising the cost of gun production, ownership and sale – would likely be found unconstitutional. All gun regulations – for example, safe storage laws and licensing – will have to be shown to be consistent with an effective right of self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

Here’s more commentary from Randy Barnett, who, like most Second Amendment scholars, has probably been pretty busy the last couple of days.

From where I sit, it seems to me the heart of the issue is simple: Supporters of the Second Amendment want you to be able to own a gun, and fire it when necessary. Opponents don’t want you to be able to fire a gun. That is the essence of it: without a bullet coming out of the barrel at high speed, a firearm is nothing more than an oddly shaped paperweight. Second Amendment opponents - by whatever means - want to deprive you of the ability to initiate a high-speed departure of a bullet from the barrel of your weapon. If that means banning the weapon entirely, that would be fine. If that means permitting the weapon, but rendering it incapable of firing the bullet, that would also be desirable, although of secondary desirability.

So, at bottom, it seems to me that laws, bans, regulations or any other restrictions that prevent you from firing a gun in defense of yourself, your family, your home, your nation, your liberty, or for recreational purposes whenever you wish, then those laws, bans, regulations, and restrictions infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

Submit to Stumbled Upon!