Anytime you find out that someone’s rights aren’t about to be curtailed, it’s a good day. It’s a shame that we live in a world where that makes it a good day, but such is the state of things in this day and age, unfortunately.

However, it’s still good news for the people of Delaware. After all, it seems the effort to ban so-called assault rifles in their state hit a major roadblock when it lost a key vote in committee.

Sen. Greg Lavelle, a northern Delaware Republican and key swing vote on a bill that would prohibit the sale of an array semi-automatic rifles, said on Wednesday that he will not to allow the legislation out of committee.

It is a decision that means the bill likely will not be addressed by the full Senate, unless the body votes to suspend legislative rules.

“Unlike many on the other side of the aisle, I consider the Constitution the first hurdle any piece of legislation must get over, and this bill clearly fails that test,” said Lavelle, R-Sharpley. “There are firearms listed in this legislation that are used for the defense of home, for hunting and for recreation. All of those uses are constitutionally guaranteed.”

Lavelle’s vote reflects a national divide over gun control measures that has widened since a February mass-shooting that killed 17 people at a Parkland, Florida high school.

Supporters say removing semi-automatic rifles from retail shelves will result in a safer society, while opponents argue such a move would violate the U.S. Constitution.

Actually, those only part of what opponents argue.

The other part is that it’s such a law that will do nothing to make our communities or our schools safer but will hurt the average law-abiding citizen who uses these kinds of weapons for personal defense or legitimate sporting purposes like hunting or competition shooting. The fact that it’s a violation of the United States Constitution is only one facet of our arguments.

But in this day and age, we’re used to our opponents completely ignoring the plain text of the Second Amendment. They’ve gotten a lot of practice at it and, as a result, so have we.

That’s why we need to make the argument that even if it weren’t a violation of the Second Amendment, it still wouldn’t do a damn thing to make our country even slightly better.

With that said, Lavelle’s refusal to budge is an important move. It would be easy to capitulate to political pressure, but I think we all know that doing so won’t accomplish much of anything in the long run other than emboldening anti-gun forces to try and browbeat others into falling in line.

The fact is, our rights aren’t up for negotiation and neither is our safety. Laws like the one proposed in Delaware put lives at risk, interferes with people’s recreation, and won’t do a damn thing it’s being touted as doing. By standing against the bill, Lavelle is making a statement that puts Americans first, not hysterical fearmongers who are terrified of an armed populace.