D.C. v. Heller

Though I'm sure that many of my fellow gun rights advocates won't be pleased to hear me say this, the best summary of today's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court came from Paul Helmke, president of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and one of America's fiercest opponents of gun rights.

In a press conference shortly after the ruling was released, Helmke stated, "They've taken the extremes away."

And he's right. Although the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court makes clear that the United States Constitution does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms, that same ruling also makes clear that many restrictions that fall short of an outright ban do not violate an individual's Second Amendment rights.

That means that the goal line has been moved for both sides. No longer can anti-gun advocates argue that the Constitution allows the government to impose any restrictions on gun ownership that it sees fit, and no longer can pro-gun advocates argue that the Constitution prohibits any and all restrictions on gun ownership.

The debate has just changed. Everyone involved will now be required to rely more heavily on facts and reason than on the dogma to which many on both sides previously clung.