Quote of the Day
For the general public, the biggest takeaway is that gun law in America is being rewritten in real time. The center of gravity has shifted from legislatures making policy judgments to courts applying an aggressive historical test that often leaves modern public safety evidence in the background.
That makes outcomes harder to predict for nonlawyers. A law that once seemed settled can suddenly become vulnerable if judges decide there is no close historical analogue from the 18th or 19th century. New Jersey’s loss shows how quickly a state can go from defending a long-standing law to facing a precedent that may weaken similar rules across the country.
It also means the national debate is no longer just about whether gun restrictions are popular or effective. Increasingly, it is about whether they fit a constitutional template shaped by history, common use, and a Supreme Court that has become more protective of gun rights. That is a very different battleground from the one most Americans are used to.
So yes, this New Jersey ruling could reshape gun laws across the U.S. It already has, in one important sense: it changed the terms of the argument. From here on out, every state with an assault weapon ban, every state with a magazine cap, and every judge hearing those challenges will be looking over their shoulder at what happened on July 17, 2026.
Daniel Whitaker
July 23, 2026
The New Jersey ruling could reshape gun laws across the US Here’s how.
The political left is getting a clue. And I think they are going to look for greener pastures than gun control. They have to realize they are on the wrong side of history.
“They have to realize they are on the wrong side of history.”
No they don’t. They haven’t realized it on anything else.
Now, they may realize that, *tactically*, that;’s not a battle worth fighting for the time being, but the moment they think they can make any “progress” at all, they will be right back at it.
“ The political left is getting a clue. And I think they are going to look for greener pastures than gun control. They have to realize they are on the wrong side of history.”
You are wish-casting sir! We would all like to hope that at some point in our long struggle to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed, God given right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves that the “progressives” would stop trying to violate our Constitution and oppress us so they can abuse, imprison, enslave or just murder us outright.
It’s not going to happen. They KNOW they are right. Anyone who disagrees will be forced to comply and mouth their acceptance of the party line or face abuse, imprisonment, enslavement and / or murder.
There really are only two kinds of people; those who wish to be left alone, and those who believe they have a moral duty to control others.
Freedom isn’t free!
I respectfully disagree. Civilian disarmament is too important to their long term plans for them to give it up willingly.
Rather, if they back off now I suspect they will circle back to it once they hold enough of the levers of power.
Side comment, I’m getting rather concerned that Kurt Schlicter’s “Kelly Turnbull” stories are turning out to be more prophecy than fantasy.
For a group that thinks Socialism and planned economies are a good idea, and who believe that men can get pregnant, their view of the ‘…right side of history’ may be as skewed as their belief of the ‘right side of facts.’
“It also means the national debate is no longer just about whether gun restrictions are popular or effective.”
That was never the debate. There was never any debate about effectiveness. It was always “what can we get away with this time.”
Exactly. Popular laws can still be unconstitutional, as Daniel Whittaker’s predecessors were so quick to assert.
Popularity never drove the cases against “Separate but Equal” that culminated in Brown vs Board of Education et al.
The cases that led to today’s expansive view of First Amendment Freedom of Speech and of the Press were not driven by a belief that someday when the roles were reversed, the protections that seemed outlandish to the majority would protect them when another divide between positions of national debate appeared. As we have seen from the events of and following January 6, 2021, that is simply not the case, even with such an expansive line of cases defending a broad freedom of speech liberty.
The Left has been arguing about gun control since forever, basing it entirely on individual circumstanes are particulars.
That position is in the process of being destroyed by courts referencing the foundation document – the Constitution – and applying it to whatever gun control case the Left tries to bring.
What you’re starting to see is the Left seeking to eliminate that foundational document, if not by discarding it sufficiently as to render it useless, but by disregarding it socially and, they hope, legally. Locally, in both municipalities and states, they’re fighting a decentralized delaying action until enough political power can be concentrated to overcome the Constituion.
Deoxy and Boris (above) have it right – the Left may waver, they may temporarily shift priorites, but they will never quit.
Prepare accordingly.
It is easy enough to reverse precedent. All it takes is 5 votes from unaccountable judges. Dobbs did that. So did Brown v Board of Education. There is plenty of sentiment in conservative circles for doing this. They just have different priorities for what should be reversed then the Left does. It is a fundamental error to depend on courts to protect our rights.