It's one of several Illinois communities — reluctant to spend money on legal fights — rushing to repeal their gun bans after the court struck down a Washington, D.C., ban, even as cities such as Chicago and San Francisco stand firm.
For some reason, that bit about Frisco doesn't sound quite right. But the hold 'em/fold 'em reactions to these post-Heller challenges bring to mind a question for those more pragmatic than me: Say a liberal court like the Ninth Circuit twists the ruling and allows a ban to stay. Then say SCOTUS ducks the issue and refuses to hear the case.
What next? Elect better representatives and change the law? In California?
Is that it? "Majority rule democracy" is the end word? And until that changes, tough luck for blue-staters and urbanites who wish to exercise their rights?
Under those circumstances, you'd condemn civil disobedience and self defense against those who would deny rights? Would this apply across the board to all rights, or just to RKBA?
Since some of the "radical" sentiments expressed by some of us are dismissed out of hand, I think it's fair to ask where more moderate guidance could ultimately lead us.
Is there a pragmatic line in the sand? What is it? What happens if it's crossed? (Assuming discussing it openly won't traumatize the melanin-deficient, of course...)
What'll it be--fight or flight? Assuming there will always be a place to flee to if no one ever make a stand...
[Via Jeffersonian]