I’m also strongly persuaded by the location of the amendment in the bill of rights, which enumerates individual rights. I hope the court acknowledges these individual rights while preserving some room for the kind of regulation most folks think is just sensible, like licensing and keeping guns away from criminals and nuts, to name a few.

I’d be shocked if the court came down with anything like a rubber stamp OK of the DC rules. But I wouldn’t that be surprised if they rule within as narrow a scope as possible, thereby extending much of the controversy and sort of passing the buck.

What I’d prefer is that they forthrightly acknowledge the basic individual right, and identify some of the existing broad principles that any government entity needs to meet in order to undertake sensible regulations without unduly infringing on individual rights. I hope they say that blanket banning is right out, but that some regulation and restriction for the sake of public safety is OK. IOW, the right exists, and here are the established principles within the law for how to manage the obvious responsibilities that must come along with such a potentially dangerous right.

For any who are interested in taking seriously the responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms, I invite you to check out today’s militia at http://www.awrm.org. We might surprise you, especially if you still believe what the mainstream media and groups like the SPLC say about us.

Peace.

I have increasingly come to think that if you can read that, and convince yourself that it means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be constitutionally infringed, you’re probably not someone I want interpreting the constitution. Also, you almost certainly think you are more clever than you really are.

Of course, if you are such a person, please feel free to interpret my first sentence as meaning I think you should be interpreting the constitution. The meaning’s in there if you look for it cleverly enough.

Put yourself in the “man of the times” frame of mind. In the 18th century by and large, if you weren’t in power you were tyranized by it. At the same time, our nations self defense consisted of local militia’s throughout the states. The great minds of the time realized that tyranny of the citizens was pretty much a rule throughout the world – but it would be different in the USA. So the feeling went that government would be less able to tyranize if it had a well regulated militia to contend with.

Jefferson firmly believed that from time to time the country would have to undergo a revolution in order to properly sustain the balance of power and maintain “of the people, by the people, for the people”……..at least from my exalted position that’s what I believe.

Regarding tomorrow…..I have become used to disappointment with the decisions of this Supreme Court – let’s just say I don’t expect any surprises.