OK, here's your chance, patriots. Tell us where a Real American is supposed to come down on this one.
The Supreme Court indicated last week it is poised to strike down firearm restrictions imposed at the state and local levels. It would presumably establish the "right to keep and bear arms" as a constitutionally guaranteed individual right (which, for whatever it's worth, I believe it is), as opposed to one that can be modified, abridged, qualified and regulated by cities and states.
Get the picture? Here we have the cherished principles of "states' rights" and "home rule" going head to head against the Second Amendment — as protected from the authority of cities and states by the big bad tyrannical Obaminated fedrul gubmint.
This is a political moment to savor, as are all those moments when our vaunted "values" — as often as not, a word we use to flatter our own hypocrisies and prejudices — crash headlong into each other. (Think of rich liberals who get caught cheating on their taxes or paying sweatshop wages to domestic workers.)
In this case, two bedrock foundations of conservatism — the right to bear arms, and local/state sovereignty against the heavy hand of Washington — are on a full-steam collision course.
Clashing interpretations of federalism are hardly new. They have been at the center of disputes over slavery, over statehood, over civil rights. (The state of Utah reportedly is poised to declare "eminent domain" authority over federal lands within its borders. Let's see how that one works out.)
To read the complete editorial, visit The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.