However you feel about increased regulation of firearms, mark my words gun control advocates will follow the path of anti-smoking forces and focus on accountability for costs/damage and the role of industry advertising. This court ruling is a big step in that direction.
The Second Amendment makes it more difficult, but these are powerful arguments and they will probably succeed down the road as the anti-tobacco forces did. Not succeed in “banning guns” just as smokes are still legal, but succeed in placing accountability for costs with those who profit from sales. This will force civil agreements similar to the “Master Settlement” with cigarette companies by gun and ammo makers that will curtail the advertising and sale of not all weapons, but the ones that cause the most damage and death. Whether they can make guns socially unacceptable like smoking remains to be seen. That’s a PR quest not a legal one.
I’m not a believer that making things illegal works well (drugs, abortion, gambling, guns spring to mind). But accountability arguments for costs and damage are compelling.
What do you think?