I have never understood those gun owners who dislike casting firearms civil rights in the light of other civil rights issues, say, abortion.
Sure it’s an inflammatory approach, but the time for gun owners to shut up and stay in the closet is long past.
Thankfully, Alan Gura (he’s the guy with hair to my right) has no problem pointing out 
that the reasoning in the 9th Circuit’s decision last week striking down an unconstitutional abortion law just happens to also support the court striking down California’s unconstitutional discretionary “may-issue” CCW/LTC licensing scheme.
Read it and enjoy. 28jisaacson
So, leftist judges’ legal logic on a politically-favored topic, abortion rights, binds them like a tar baby into a similar result* for an unfavored topic, firearms civil rights.
Can you say “Unintended Consequences?” I knew you could!
*if they’re intellectually honest in their ruling, of course. We’ll see.
Yup, pretty clear language.
“Isaacson demonstrates that the exercise of rights cannot be made contingent on the approval of others, that barriers absolutely precluding the exercise of rights are not regulations, and that the government’s safety concerns cannot negate a right’s existence. ”
If that’s there logic, it should apply everywhere. Nothing there about speech, abortion, press, searches, or anything, just a general statement about the nature of rights.
RELEASE THE GURAKEN
If you’re on the correct side of an argument, pointing out logic that draws parallels to the incorrect side of another argument is not a good debate approach. “Two wrongs” and all that…
If the current caselaw means such arguments are necessary in court, fine, but perhaps you should rhetorically focus on a concrete right (such as voting, or perhaps consensual sexual contact amongst adults) rather than something as specious as abortion “rights.”