By Jim Shepherd

When United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia penned the majority-opinion in the landmark Heller decision last year, he was roundly criticized by legal scholars (primarily from the dissenting position) for having created a document that left many legal questions regarding firearms unanswered.

Justice Scalia's response was simple: the broad decision was written, and the lower courts would use the Heller decision to create legal precedents from other cases going forward. In other words, precedent-setting cases on the nuances of the matter of the individual right to keep and bear arms enumerated by the Second Amendment would follow.

Seems Justice Scalia was as on target with that estimation as he was in the majority opinion.

Less than a year after Heller, the Circuit Courts of the United States seem to be headed back to the Supreme Court with contrary findings on gun rights. It is highly likely the Supreme Court will, once again, hear a case and decide another piece of precedent-setting law.

Amend Constitution by Statute, Using EPA Laws

By Dave Kopel

"The National Parks Service has announced it will not challenge a court order that temporarily stops the late-term Bush administration policy of allowing CCW-permit holders to carry in National Parks."

That's the news media's backwards way of saying the bureaucrats running the National Parks are delighted they don't have to allow CCW-permit holders to exercise their civil rights in the parks, at least for now.