An important part of building success for the Second Amendment, over the long term, rests in making good arguments within the legal community. We lament the current state of federal rulings in Second Amendment cases, but it’s worth noting that most of the judges on the bench today spent most of their careers believing the Second Amendment was a meaningless anachronism, and old habits die hard. There is a chance with the next generation.Â Jonathan Goldstein has an article in The Philadelphia Lawyer discussing the issue of gun rightsÂ in a way that’s not going to come off as mouth foaming to the uninitiated:
These and other uncertainties in the law must be clarified. Gun owners working hard to comply with the law shouldnâ€™t have to live with the constant threat of prosecution for vague offenses or uneven application of the law. Instead, our statutes and regulations should serve as a clear guide to help principled gun owners comply with the law.
In short, if we treat law abiding gun owners as the respect-worthy citizens that we are â€“ mainstream people exercising a constitutionally protected civil right â€“ we can find common ground to keep guns away from inappropriate people and demonstrate to any observer that compliance with the law is worth the trouble.
As they say, read the whole thing. I know a lot of people aren’t comfortable with the idea of “inappropriate people,” but “gun rights for felons and schizophrenics” isn’t a hill I think most of us are particularly keen to die on, especially not in publications meant to persuade the legal community.