It's always nice to see articles from lawyers. I thought this one was particularly interesting and deals with the meaning of "shall not be infringed" when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

The part where I see some light is in the following paragraph:

Historically, the answer courts have generally given is that “reasonable regulations” of the right to bear arms aren’t infringements, while “prohibitions” are infringements. That of course just pushes the problem back to the question of what’s a reasonable regulation and what’s a prohibition (or an unreasonable regulation); and I think the courts have sometimes found gun restrictions to be “reasonable regulations” when they should have struck down the restrictions as excessively burdening — and therefore infringing — the right. But I mention the historical answer because it suggests that American law has long recognized that not all restrictions are infringements; and my sense is that it is consistent with much of the thinking of the Framing era, in which (for instance) many kinds of restrictions on speech were seen as permissible reasonable regulations.

I think HiCarry posted it before, but Hawaii's concealed carry restrictions are in essence a prohibition and therefore an infringement. Of course someone would still need to challenge that in court or we need to communicate that to our legislators to get anything changed.

It is so sad that even when the high court of our country says it is our RIGHT to have a handgun for self defense, and chi town says, "ok, you can have your evil handgun. All you have to do is: jump through this hoop, then under this bridge, then through two more hoop, do the hokie pokie turn yourself around, pay us $3,000,000 and you can have your handgun."

just makes me sick.