Doris Wise Montrose

The handgun is a defensive tool—but mastering it means going beyond minimum standards. If you can consistently make hits at 50 or even 100 yards, you’ll find 7 to 15 yards far less demanding. Long-distance practice isn’t about showing off. It’s about building the skills, discipline, and confidence that make you a more capable and

Before deciding whether government may ban a commonly owned firearm, shouldn’t government first identify where the Constitution grants it that authority? WASHINGTON — If gun owners had a magic lamp and three wishes, likely all three wishes would be for the Supreme Court to hear a case addressing so-called “assault weapons” bans, and today the

The side that defines the words usually defines the debate. A Personal Note If you’ve followed me over the years, you’ve probably noticed that I pay close attention to words. There’s a reason. I’ve long believed that one of the greatest strengths of the political left is its disciplined use of language. It understands that

Excellent article. It also highlights what I think is the deeper constitutional issue. The problem isn’t that the Second Amendment is unclear. The problem is that courts too often begin by asking whether a particular arm is protected instead of asking where the Constitution grants government the authority to prohibit it. Once that starting point

Loyalty belongs to the Constitution, not to any politician. If we expect anti-gun politicians to be held accountable for attacking our rights, we should expect pro-gun politicians to be held accountable for defending them. That’s not disloyalty. It’s citizenship. At a June 23 rally in Macungie, Pennsylvania, President Trump asked the crowd how they felt

I love the last paragraph of this article. The state argues that history supports disarming citizens to prevent the “violent disruption of government functions.” That’s an odd argument to make in the country whose founders violently disrupted the English government’s functions, won their independence, and then wrote the Second Amendment to ensure the people retained

The most important question in this case isn’t whether the government can respond to a mental health crisis. It’s whether the government can strip innocent people of their constitutional rights because of someone else’s circumstances. The court got it right. The parents were not accused of threatening anyone. Their firearms were secured. Yet they lost

A TV line about who’s got the gun explains the whole Second Amendment. Don’t give yours up. Don’t let it be taken. Even Hillel understood the principle. A character on a television show said it in passing, almost as an aside. The natural order of things is whoever has got a gun on them. No music swelled.

Will some lower courts continue looking for ways to uphold gun-control laws despite Wolford? Almost certainly. We’ve seen that pattern before. But Wolford matters because it closes off another avenue of judicial evasion. Every time the Supreme Court clarifies the Second Amendment, it becomes harder for lower courts to sidestep the Constitution without increasing the

Most people are focusing on the marijuana aspect of Hemani. I think they’re missing the bigger story. The Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized pre-deprivation process: the government must give you your day in court before it takes away a constitutional right. That’s a serious problem for red flag laws, which typically seize firearms first and provide