A few thoughts on Parker v. District of Columbia:

As excellent as this decision is, it emphasizes what the wrongly-termed Antifederalists claimed all along: whenever a government is the ultimate judge of its own authority, the people are never safe from its naturally expanding power. The majority of Second Amendment decisions have not gone our way, and there is no reason to think that the full panel of appellate judges or the Supreme Court may not throw out this decision in favor of the "collective right" (or no right) argument at any time in the future.

It's completely insane that such a decision even has to be written. While I'm glad to see the tables turning, I suspect that our little VT miscreant may have thrown a spanner in the works. I hope the decision stands up to the inevitable public outcry, but I am not terribly optimistic that we will see lasting change until the people realize that arming themselves is necessary to protect their own lives and liberties and that no god or government has the right to tell them they cannot do so. The only question is, will it be too late?

To wit:

That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791(1989) ("[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . ."). Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the Second Amendment. For instance, it is presumably reasonable "to prohibit the carrying of weapons when under the influence of intoxicating drink, or to a church, polling place, or <b>public assembly</b>, or in a manner calculated to inspire terror..." State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921). And as we have noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment. Robertson;, 165 U.S. at 281-82. Similarly, the Court also appears to have held that convicted felons may be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller, 307 U.S. at 178). These regulations promote the government's interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised. (Emphasis added.)

Apparently there are large parts of the operative clause (you know, the part where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?) that the court still does not understand.

The D.C. regulations are simply natural extensions of the restrictions listed above. Banning firearms will keep them out of the hands of convicted felons and away from public gatherings, will they not? Previously existing laws evidently failed, so the District just decided to escalate things a bit, that's all.

I maintain that all of these restrictions impair the core conduct. No law or restriction will stop a person bent on creating public mayhem. To go back to the VT shootings, the fact that there was a gun ban on campus didn't really matter a whole lot to Cho Seung-Hui, but it mattered plenty to the 32 people he killed. It is up to individual gun owners to be responsible in their own use of guns, if only to be prepared when people who aren't so inclined start threatening them.

Those filing amicus briefs for the appellants and appellees constitute a revealing list of attitudes towards the Second Amendment.

For the appellants: the Attorneys General for the states of Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, and Wyoming, plus the Second Amendment Foundation, Congress of Racial Equality, American Civil Rights Union, and the National Rifle Association.

For the appellees: the Attorneys General for the states of Massachusetts, Idaho(!), Maryland, New Jersey, and San Francisco, plus the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

If you are in anyway represented by a state that filed an amicus brief for the appellees, I suggest you move before your guns are grabbed. After all, this was a 2-1 decision, subject to reversal at any time.