Back in the days of CP/M computers, I used to sign on to a local board in the Washington, D.C., area at a breathtaking 300 baud. For the most part everyone got along, but when I stated my opposition to D.C. home rule, I thought a war would break out. Many took my side, but one fellow, a guy named "Tad" really blew his stack.
I think what got me in trouble was when they were discussing statehood, and Tad asked if I believed in statehood. I said, nah, I didn't even believe in home rule because I'd always been taught the nation's capital belonged to everyone...in all 50 states. Why should those who live there get to decide laws that would affect everyone else?
Well, I had a lot of defenders, but the controversy nearly shut down the board. The system operator (SYSOP), I think, was on my side, but he was literally swamped by a bunch of tree-hugging Kaypro users, whilst the more intelligent Zorba and Osborne computer users were holding on for dear life. But I used the gun law as an example of local tyranny.
Now those corrupt city officials are thinking how they're going to sidestep a legal decision in the event it doesn't go their way.
I can't be too hard on them this time, though, because we, as gun owners, will support the ruling if it's in our favor. But if the court finds in favor of the "collective" interpretation, then we, quite frankly, won't recognize it, either. We KNOW what the founders meant when they wrote it and we'd like it if the court agrees. But if they don't, it will be the beginning of a long period of adversarial relations between constructionists and Stalinists...er...I mean the opposition. And frankly, I liked Andrew Jackson's response to a court decision in his day: Who asked 'em?
Anyway, we shouldn't be too sure we're going to win this one. Some of those justices ardently believe in a "living" Constitution.
.
