Potential Future Developments: An interesting appellate case along with the fact that even the major Democratic presidential candidates honored an individuals rights view of the Second Amendment suggests the possibility that gun rights might be a matter the Supreme Court might directly deal with in a few years. It already used a federal gun free school act and the Brady Act (background checks) to deal with federalism issues. And, though the lower court case involved here followed normal practice in upholding the (federal) law involved, it did so by using a nuanced test that mixes both individual and collective rights versions. Various circuits use different tests [the opinion spells out three ... the one used by my own is not noted, but see, e.g. here] and conflict is sure to arise at some point.

The law involved a federal regulation over military bases that applied state gun laws. The majority basically relied on the argument that a revolver is not a "militia weapon," since it only is used for personal defense or target shooting. An arguable statement as is, the concurrence would decide it on even narrower grounds -- the fact it was basically a concealed weapon case made it a reasonable regulation, and the broader questions were too interesting to thrust aside so cavalierly. A case from Utah (the 10th Circuit), one can imagine another judge agreeing in a closer case, and joining the Fifth in recognizing an individual right to own a firearm.

---

Rev. Newdow: Do you know that Michael Newdow is a minister in the Universal Life Church and First Amendmist (sic) Church of True Science. Lawyer, doctor, minister ... a true jack of all trades. More seriously, this discussion further explains how one need not to be an atheist to agree with Newdow. And is it a sort of loyalty oath?

---

Unborn Victims' Bill: There is probably no compelling need to in 2004 to suddenly have a law that protects the unborn in particular when a federal crime is committed, especially when over twenty states do not. It is divisive, partly because a major reason (with election year overtones) for it is to symbolically [use of the word "child" to apply to even an embryo, etc.] or concretely limit the range of the pro-choice movement. An alternative that dealt with some of these concerns was voted down. Perhaps, it might be on some level a good thing to accept such a law to show the reasonableness of the abortion choice movement. All the same, members of it still have a right to be suspicious. Of particular concern to me is the fact you need not know the woman be pregnant for it to come into effect.

[Update: I discuss this is in more detail here, while Jack Balkin argues (3/26) that it cuts against the pro-life position as well. I would toss in a proviso to the effect we no longer deal with Roe, but whatever somewhat watered down form of it the courts are willing to uphold.]