It's pretty hard for me to swallow that the media is largely neutral on issues when I've read as many anti-gun editorials as I've read. Especially when you consider how few pro-gun editorials I've come across, and almost none from anything approaching the status as a major newspaper.

Editorials are an acceptable place for opinion, mind you, but it's too universal of a phenomenon for me to be able to trust journalists to not be biased when covering gun-related issues.

Yet even in opinion pieces, you need to be able to at least support your arguments.

A recent editorial at the New York Daily News, by way of Yahoo, fails that simple test.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that had struck down a Pennsylvania law barring people under 21 from carrying firearms openly during declared states of emergency. It’s hard to really celebrate this as a victory given how basic common sense it is — that judges had found it proper to allow 18-year-olds to walk around with drawn firearms during emergencies strains understanding.

Yet it’s still a small win that was tempered almost immediately by Buffalo Federal Judge John Sinatra who struck down a part of New York State’s 2022 gun law that had made it illegal to concealed-carry firearms into private property like stores and restaurants unless those locations affirmatively indicated they accepted such weapons. Once more, a judge has stepped in to toss uncertainty into the already dangerous panorama of U.S. gun culture and regulation.

One thing all this back-and-forth highlights is that it doesn’t make much sense to run gun control policy in a way that is constantly subject to reinterpretation at the whim of the courts. In this case, the Supreme Court made the right call; in others, it has gone the opposite way, such as with the 2022 ruling against longtime New York gun limits, which itself precipitated the concealed carry gun laws that Sinatra just overturned.

Now, I agree that we currently have confusion on gun policy, but I chalk more of that up to Rahimi than to Bruen, and the implication that New York's restrictions on concealed carry were somehow the wrong call requires them to show their work.

Let's understand that prior to Bruen, New York's "may issue" law on concealed carry was, in practice, a "probably won't" issue law. Had New York used it in such a way as to deny people they believed to be dangerous even if they hadn't been caught, but defaulted to a yes for everyone else, they likely could have made an argument defending the measure.

Instead, it basically made it impossible for average New Yorkers to carry a gun lawfully.

It's "the right to keep and bear arms," after all. How can you say it's right to deny people the ability to bear arms from a Second Amendment standpoint?

They also called the Court's overturning of the bump stock ban "nonsensical" which it wasn't. Not when you consider what laws are on the books and that it wasn't even really a Second Amendment case. Instead, it was a case about whether the ATF could redefine what Congress had previously defined. The ruling was that it couldn't, though it left the door open for Congress to deal with.

Editorial boards are supposed to be among the best and brightest a given publication can muster. 

If this is their best, I'm worried about the competence of the guys in the mailroom. Then again, with what we've now seen from the board, maybe they should give those guys a shot. It's not like they could do much worse.