Gunsmith asks,
can someone explain to a layman like me in plain English what good stuff can happen soon as a result of this decision?
That is of course
the question, Gunsmith. I suspect that the important word in your question is "soon." If I am right about that, then I also suspect that the answer to your question is "Not much."
To overstate the resulting situation at one extreme, if the Supreme Court should affirm
Parker next week in its entirety I would not recommend that you walk into your local bank carrying a machine gun.
At the other extreme it is possible that if you live in a state which now prohibits you from having a handgun in your home for self-defense, after the Court affirms
Parker you might expect that after jumping through exhausting and perhaps expensive administrative and judicial hoops for perhaps a long time you might find yourself authorized by some judge to have that handgun. Don't be surprised, however, if, notwithstanding what you read in
Parker, the state might first make you risk your freedom.
This is not doom and gloom, Gunsmith. This is the way the judicial system works. I predict that none of our present THRers will be alive when it is finally learned just what the Second Amendment means even if the Supreme Court affirms
Parker. In fact I suspect that this question will remain open forever.
Just take a look at the way the other things on the Bill of Rights have developed through time. For a while we thought, for example, that we knew what the 5th meant -- then along comes the
Miranda case. For years we thought we had a pretty good idea what the 4th meant -- and then along comes the Patriot Act and, just last week, the truth about the FBI's National Security Letters. For years we thought we knew what the 6th meant -- and then we see Gitmo, with prisoners confined for years with no trial and no effective counsel. For years we thought we knew what the 8th meant -- and then we see Abu Ghraib.
It is no accident that I have gone out of my way to politicize this, Gunsmith, and I hasten to admit this before the flame-throwers come out -- but, as I have said before, this is not cut-and-dried. There are political questions here, and we must never forget that the Supreme Court is a political animal, whether you might from time-to-time label it as conservative or liberal. It makes no difference. One does not just "read the Constitution as it was written" and thereby dispose of the problems. It will always -- always -- be read as the mind of the reader reads it.
So -- we will have to bide our time and watch things develop, and at the same time restrain ourselves and not hurt our own case in a political sense.
All the best,
Jim
