Here is an interesting article by a former Brady Campaign lawyer. My main thought reading it is that a court should not “[approach] the Heller case in a spirit conciliation and compromise rather than extremism”, but should instead attempt to interpret and apply the law as it was written. What a concept! The duty of the court is not to reach a compromise, but to apply the laws that the other branches of government institute. If a compromise is to be reached, it is the place of the Executive and Legislative branches to reach it, and the Judicial branch is charged with enforcing it. What is being called for here is judicial activism. A court looking to compromise in this way is legislating from the bench. Either the amendment guarantees an individual right that is subject to the scrutiny applied to our other rights, or it doesn’t. The Court is to see that the Constitution is applied as it was ratified, not to apply it as they, the media, or even the general public would like it to be applied. If the Constitution is seen to be deficient, there is an amendment process that can be used to change it, but the anti-gun crowd knows that there is not the public support required to do this.
I will say it is good to see them “manning the lifeboats,” as Dave Hardy said.