Must we treat the Constitution, and its Second Amendment, as static and sacrosanct, as the bloodshed spirals onward? From a historical perspective, the answer is no.

Originalism has been manipulated by the right to mask its approach to determining the values enforced by the Constitution. The originalists of the right are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own text, and not to their own history.

In the delusional world of the NRA's leaders, people can be divided into good guys and bad -- and the good guys never commit violent acts. In that world it follows that we should simply arm the good guys so they can shoot back at the bad guys. For the NRA, this "logic" applies just as well to teenagers as to adults. Back on planet Earth, we understand that far too many 18 year olds who appear to be "good" actually will do some very bad things, and creating a constitutional right for teenagers to carry concealed weapons is nothing but lunacy.

In America, the threat of terrorism is real, but it does not originate with Al Qaeda alone. The danger of homegrown right wing political violence is just as real.

The U.S. v. Skoien ruling is a bucket of cold water thrown on the "gun rights" celebration following the Supreme Court's decision last month in McDonald v. City of Chicago striking down Chicago's handgun ban.

Even after the landmark Supreme Court decisions that gave individuals across the country a right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, the gun lobby still isn't happy.

Two summers ago, I blogged with great concern about a statement made by Justice Scalia in the Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment opinion, District of Columbia v. Heller. Since the Heller decision, many gun rights commentators have used Scalia's construct to link the need for unfettered access to firearms with a right to engage in political violence against the Obama administration. Now, the same five-justice majority as in Heller determined that the holding applies to the states.

The NRA accuses Kagan of a "clear hostility" to the Second Amendment, but that means she understands our Constitution leaves ample room for reasonable gun restrictions that can save lives.

These most recent incidents stand as proof of why states and local governments must be able to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns.

I'll give the gun-rights supporter on NPR this morning one bit of credit in his comparison of bookstores to gun stores: books can be dangerous. Books ...

Given that several states have gun laws far stronger than federal law, does McDonald lay the groundwork for the unraveling of gun restrictions? If the gun lobby thinks so, it is likely to be disappointed.

The calculus changed for the Second Amendment in 2008, when the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, ruled that the amendment protected an individual right of civilians to own handguns.

As the nation contemplates Justice Stevens' impending retirement and its implications, all Americans concerned about the daily tragedy of American gun violence should pause to recognize their debt of gratitude to him.

If Chicago's law is struck down, it will no doubt be hailed by the NRA as a great victory, as was Heller. But the most ardent "gun rights" advocates can barely hide their disappointment with the practical impact.

Last Tuesday, I was in the courtroom as the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Second Amendment challenge to Chicago's handgun ban. As my report fo...

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court suggested Tuesday it will strike down U.S. cities' outright bans on handguns, a ruling that could establish a nat...