The other big thing going on is that the grabbers (both on the bench and their various supporters doing law review articles) are now scrambling like mad to figure out how to separate "keep" from "bear".
In other words, they've been hanging all their arguments pre-Heller on the idea that we have neither as personal individual rights. Now that a personal right to KEEP has been established, they have no ready-made fallback position for how we might have a right to "keep" but not "bear".
This has them in a serious panic.
When Gary Gorski went before an all-female three-judge panel of the 9th recently on a CCW case, at least one of the "ladies" in robes said that since the Heller case was about "keeping" arms, obviously "bearing" could be banned. With no good backing for it of course
.
In other words, they've been hanging all their arguments pre-Heller on the idea that we have neither as personal individual rights. Now that a personal right to KEEP has been established, they have no ready-made fallback position for how we might have a right to "keep" but not "bear".
This has them in a serious panic.
When Gary Gorski went before an all-female three-judge panel of the 9th recently on a CCW case, at least one of the "ladies" in robes said that since the Heller case was about "keeping" arms, obviously "bearing" could be banned. With no good backing for it of course
.
I was hoping someone had seen the show that might have a better assessment than I can provide...but it was nice to see the two opposing thought process' when making decisions on a wide variety of subjects. The results were as predictable as left and right, emotional vs logical. Very interesting.