So as a frequent guest on NRANews.com, I hear from the gun-rights crowd often. Second Amendment enthusiasts are vocal, active, and perhaps an unrivaled force in American politics, and they’ll pull out all the stops at the ballot box to swiftly evict any politician who attempts to restrict their rights.

But there’s no denying that the issue of gun rights faded a bit since 2000, when many Democrats concluded that Al Gore’s stand on guns cost him his home state of Tennessee and perhaps some other states. With relatively pro-gun President Bush in the Oval Office and the relatively pro-gun GOP in control of Congress, the primary threat to gun rights seemed to come from state and local governments, and lawsuits. There was some speculation that despite fantastic reelection rates for pro-gun candidates in 2002 and 2004, that gun owners had gotten a little comfortable, and little less motivated to see this as their defining, make-or-break issue.

But I distinctly recall some NRANews listener asking if Election Night 2006 marked the end of gun owner’s rights in America, and while that dire prediction is premature, gun owners now have more at stake at the federal level. And the huge decision on the District of Columbia’s gun ban will also push the issue to the front page again, and presidential candidates will be asked about their stands, repeatedly. It’s a bigger headache for Democrats, who have to balance the ban-guns stands of their base with the pro-Second Amendment rights stance of a majority of the public (and many New Hampshire primary voters as well).

George Will this weekend:

Increasingly, however, some constitutional scholars and judicial rulings argue that several restraints the Bill of Rights puts on government can be disregarded if the worthiness – as academics or judges assess that – of government’s purposes justifies ignoring those restraints. Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of law and political science at Duke University, argued in The Washington Post last week that even if the Second Amendment is correctly construed as creating an individual right to gun ownership, the D.C. law should still be constitutional because the city had a defensible intent (reducing violence) when it annihilated that right.
If the Supreme Court reverses the appeals court’s ruling and upholds the D.C. gun law, states and localities will be empowered to treat the Second Amendment as the D.C. law does – as a nullity. This will bring the gun control issue – and millions of gun owners – back to a roiling boil.

Steve Chapman, in the Chicago Tribune this weekend:

So if this decision is upheld, it will not change our treatment of guns very much. Complete bans would be off-limits, but they are already rarer than white buffaloes. Most other gun control laws would remain on the books, and anti-gun groups would be free to press for additional ones. The only obstacle would be the one that has stymied them in the past: insufficient public support. It wasn’t the constitutional right to keep and bear arms that induced Congress to let the federal ban on “assault weapons” expire, or that persuaded 40 states to allow the carrying of concealed handguns. Those choices were the product of sentiment among citizens and legislators who see most restrictions on firearms as futile at best and dangerous at worst.

Over at ChicagoBoyz, they speculate that if the Supreme Court doesn’t uphold the decision, the result will be similar to the fallout from the land seizures case, Kelo vs. New London – the launch of massive grassroots legislative efforts in states and localities.

The Big Three on the Republican side – Giuliani, McCain, and Romney – all have flaws in their record from the perspective of gun owners. But the contrast with the opposition is still striking.

Hillary? Well, her reputation among firearms owners seems well established:

If she is elected, she will make gun owners wish her husband was back in the Oval Office. She does not like firearms and she does not like us and she is much meaner and more vindictive than Bubba. She will sign every gun law that comes along, and scream at Congress for more.

Obama? As CBS News notes:

[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.
Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

Edwards? Few hunters saw him as one of their own in 2004, despite his efforts to ingratiate himself with them. Might have had something to do with this interview:

Q: “Do you hunt?”
A: “I used to hunt a lot. Haven’t hunted in years.”…
Q: “Do you own a gun?”
A: “Not today. I have in the past.”
Q: “You said you had a gun in the past. How long ago was that?”
A: “When I was growing up. I haven’t had a gun in — you mean personally? — in years. I’d have to figure out when …”
Q: “What kind of gun was it?”
A: “Get out of here (laughs).”
Q/Reply: “People want to know these things …”
A: “Yeah, I know. You want to know these things. (Laughter from his staff as Edwards departs to return to the Senate).” (Tim Funk, “Q&A With John Edwards,” The Charlotte Observer, 5/26/03)

Gun rights will be competing for attention with a lot of big issues in 2008. Many members of the national press aren’t likely to give the issue any more attention than they need to. They tend to see the issue as the exclusive concern of those people in the backwoods; civilized reporters, editors, columnists and anchors tend to not carry firearms for personal protection. This fact that probably reflects the fact that they work in places with many security guards between them and the potentially-dangerous riff-raff at large; the guy working the midnight shift at the all-night convenience store may see the issue differently.