I'm seeing a lot of confidence in the outcome of Heller and it is possible it will be entirely justified by the decision.
What if it isn't? Who's got a Plan B?
There are many possible outcomes, all the way from the High Court taking the Brady stinkfinger and telling us, "If you want a gun, join the National Guard!" to becoming delightfully Original Intent and ruling, "Shall not be infringed. Shall. Not. QED." What I expect is nuance; this is legalese for "weaseling." After all, they're lawyers. If they're not generating a great deal of paperwork covvered with impressive-looking verbiage, how would we know they'd been working at all?
The trouble with nuance is there's a lot of room for interpretation. On the other hand, better nuance than a blanket "no."
Just don't uncork the champagne before the chickens have hatched. The Supremes have a long, strange history of balking at gnats while swallowing Camels (or even Viceroys) whole. We'd best prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.
Introduction to Sim
5 weeks ago