[Nathaniel Firethorn]

What do you think will happen when a real 2A case (like Silveira vs. Lockyer) makes it to the US Supreme Court?

Will they reaffirm RKBA as an individual right?

Will they wipe out the Second Amendment altogether?

Will they "compromise" and leave restrictive state laws in place?

(I was going to post a poll, but hit the wrong button.)

- pdmoderator

[BigG]

1) The SC only hears the cases it wants to.
2) The SC has studiously avoided hearing any case on a controversial matter like RKBA.
3) See 1) above.

[Jeeper]

I know that others will disagree with this:

I wouldnt call Silveria a "real 2nd amend" case. Silveria is not the case we want going up there. They can easily decide it without ever getting to the issue. THey can also decide it by saying that restrictions on assault weapons are ok. We need a straight up "Handgun ban in the home" case to go up there. THe current court would decide Silveria on vague terms around assault weapons. I personally like the case that CATO is bringing. I brought Bob Levy from Cato in to speak to my gun club at my law school about it. It is an interesting case because it doesnt deal with the incorperation issue since it is in DC. THis could be a huge point against the other cases. All they have to say is the 2nd isnt incorperated and it is over in other cases. The current makeup isnt the best for our cases. It will be interesting when it happens. That is my 2cents.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If the case comes up before the Supreme Court right now, I'd bet on an individual rights decision mirroring Emerson - where the court rules that the Second does protect an individual right; but still maintains that body cavity probing, licensing, registration and selective bans don't violate that right.

[OF]

They will engage in whatever twisting mental gymnastics they have to in order to keep from upsetting the status quo.

Then it'll be business as usual.

- Gabe

[Sergeant Bob]

All I need to do is look at a recent 14th Amendment "no decision, decision" to indicate how I suspect any coming 2nd Amendment case might turn out. I don't really expect "this" court to take a real stand on anything as controversial as the 2nd.
Bartholomew pretty much nailed it.

[Graystar]

As with all cases, they will rule narrowly on the issue at hand. But most likely they'll determine that the 2nd exist to insure that states can defend themselves, and find that the National Guard provides that defense, and thus, the 2nd is statisfied.

The bottom line is that SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER is about personal self defense, and the 2nd Amendment is not. This case will do nothing but hurt the cause.

Instead of being look upon as the proper course of action, any 9th Amendment cases that come after such a loss will be view as lame attempts to get around a Supreme Court ruling.

SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER does raise the issue under the 9th Amendment. However, their presentation is fatally flawed. Instead of proving the connection between firearm possession and self-defense, they simply state that firearm possession is a right, as if it has already been argued and accepted. This is far, far from the truth, and the major problem with all of these types of arguments.

Let's hope this never gets to the Supreme Court.

[Molon Labe]

One of my pet-peeves is when so-called “gun rights activists” bring up the 2nd Amendment. “No! No! Don’t bring that up!!” I think to myself.

This obsession with the 2nd Amendment has got to stop. I am serious. The 2nd Amendment is WAY overplayed amongst the gun rights crowd. (You will rarely hear me talking about it.)

Why?

When we focus on the 2nd Amendment, we are implying that the 2nd Amendment is the origin of our right to keep and bear arms and that, without it, we would not have that right. That, of course, is bullsh*t.

Let me give you an example… let’s pretend the 1st Amendment never existed. Would we still have a right to speak freely? Of course! Freedom of speech is an inalienable right. Even the liberals would agree. Would we still have a right to freely assemble? Of course! Freedom to assemble is an inalienable right. Even the liberals would agree. Would we still have a right to freely worship? Of course! Freedom of religion is an inalienable right. Even the liberals would agree.

Do you see what I’m getting at? It does not matter whether or not a frick’n amendment even exists. Fact is, you have inalienable rights regardless of what’s written on any paper document.

So why do we focus so heavily on the 2nd Amendment?? Someone please explain this to me! Why do we care?

Would you still have a right to keep and bear arms if the 2nd Amendment didn’t exist?! Of course!!!!!!!!!!! So why the hell are we so obsessed with it?

Here’s the bottom line (for me): I could care less what any court thinks of my inalienable rights. I do not celebrate “good” decisions and I do not throw a pity party over “bad” ones. I simply don’t care. Why? Because caring implies that the existence of my rights are somehow contingent on a frick’n court decision. What could be more preposterous than that??

The government wants us to focus on the 2nd Amendment. The government wants us to focus on court decisions. They love it when we rejoice “good” court decisions and get mad over “bad” ones. Why? Because it empowers them.

Wanna know what the government’s worse nightmare is? For the people to ignore the 2nd Amendment. For the people to ignore court decisions.

It’s high-time we flip the birdy to the government and tell them that their "court decisions" are totally, 100% irrelevant when it comes to our rights.

And finally, for the naysayes, keep in mind what the 2nd Amendment is: it’s for the government, not us. It limits the government’s power, not ours. The only thing a court can do is reaffirm this fact. It cannot and should not use the 2nd Amendment as a means to grant us or deny us the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, if the Supreme Court said that the 2nd Amendment allows the people to keep and bear arms, I would be just as pissed if it said the 2nd Amendment disallows the people to keep and bear arms. Neither the government nor the Constitution has the authority to say anything about our inalienable rights, good or bad.

[bjengs]

Nice post.

[Hkmp5sd]

The US Supreme Court will decline to hear the case and let the lower court ruling stand. And that lower court ruling will probably be against the 2nd Amendment.

[Spragins]

Molon Labe wrote: "This obsession with the 2nd Amendment has got to stop. I am serious. The 2nd Amendment is WAY overplayed amongst the gun rights crowd. Why?"

Put me down as one of the obsessed who believes that the importance of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, cannot be overstated! The inalienable right to keep and bear arms is not just an abstract concept, it is a practical right I would like to exercise without governmental interference. CCL's are almost never issued in my home state (Maryland) as a result of laws that I believe are unconstitutional. A Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws and upholding a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment would not create a right to keep and bear arms, but it would make it possible for many of us to exercise that right without having to weigh the benefits of carrying against the consequences of violating criminal laws prohibiting it.

[Hkmp5sd]

Why do we care?

You answered your own question.

but it would make it possible for many of us to exercise that right without having to weigh the benefits of carrying against the consequences of violating criminal laws prohibiting it.

[Standing Wolf]

Too bad we don't have a Republican majority in the Senate, or we could ensure that only strict constitutional constructionists end up on federal benches.

[Hkmp5sd]

We have the majority, just not enough to stop a filibuster. The other problem we have is we cannot trust the Republicans we do have to vote the way we want on 2nd Amendment issues.

[OF]

While it is important (critical) to understand that the 2nd Amendment only affirms in text an existing right of the people, the 2nd is the 'elephant in the living room' in a legal sense. To get where the gun grabbers want to go, they have to deal with the 2nd. So I am thankful beyond words that it's there. The 2nd Amendment is the best tool we have at this point to try and regain our rights. It's invaluable. Agreed, it's easy to forget, and our enemies ignore, that the 2nd merely puts into words the right, and gives but one reason it is so precious.

At this point, we're so screwed that the court is reading the Bill of Rights as if those are the only rights we have. It's sickening. We have to use the 2nd. We have no choice. Maybe someday we can find a court that understands the nature of rights and the proper relationship between the people and their gov't in terms of power, it ain't there now. But those words are on that page for all to see, and nothing can erase them.

- Gabe

[Sergeant Bob]

At this point, we're so screwed that the court is reading the Bill of Rights as if those are the only rights we have. It's sickening.
Therein lies the problem. There's a large number of Second Amendment advocates (even on this board) who believe the only rights we have are those which are spelled out in the BOR. Wasn't it Madison who argued against a BOR due to the fear of "Cafeteria Constitutionalists"? If RKBA was not in the BOR, we'd probably not have a chance.

Too bad we don't have a Republican majority in the Senate, or we could ensure that only strict constitutional constructionists end up on federal benches.
You're correct. What we have is a few "R"s, and alot of typographical errors!

[sw442642]

There are clear cases that could be used to test the 2nd Amend. One is the DC total ban which is being used as a test. Another is the NY case of the guy who just go a few days for a justified defense of self.

However, neither the NRA or antigunners really want a definitive decision. Both sides will do anything to avoid one.

Unlike the TX Sodomy case, the NRA won't stand up and take it like a man. They avoid the SCOTUS and clear cases as they are afraid to lose.

Also, if there was a clear pro-gun decision, the NRA is out of business. What would be left - three bullseye shooters and some duck hunters?

[Mike Irwin]

Diana Ross will sing a bitching solo....

[BowStreetRunner]

I was wondering what would happen if someone challenged an Assault Weapons Ban on the basis of Miller v. US.......if I read and recall correctly, in Miller the Supremes stated that the conviction of the men would stand because the sawed off shotgun in question had no militia applications.....applying that logic, assault weapons do have a militia application and should be legal...........
anyways just wondering
I dont think the Supremes would take a 2nd Am case.....they would probably rather take the status quo over the right decision......its scary to see Oconnor and some of the liberal justices speak about "well, maybe in 25 years we wont have to do this anti white/asian/etc discrimination and we can abolish affirmative action"....they have in essence admitted that they arent following the constitution to the letter, but, hey, its ok because they are helping people!
A dream of mine (which will proabaly never come true) is to read in the paper that Justice Scalia is writing the SCOTUS MAJORITY opinion on a 2nd AM case
Im pretty sure he and his strict constitutionalist buddy Thomas could get it right
BSR

[Graystar]

I was wondering what would happen if someone challenged an Assault Weapons Ban on the basis of Miller v. US.......if I read and recall correctly, in Miller the Supremes stated that the conviction of the men would stand because the sawed off shotgun in question had no militia applications.....applying that logic, assault weapons do have a militia application and should be legal........... The process that the court used would not be helpful.

First off, the court reversed a dismissal of the charges against Miller. Miller was never tried, as he was already dead by the time the court made its decision.

The court review previous militia acts to determine the type of weapons that were called for. They found no instance of a weapon, with a barrel of 18" or shorter, being specified for militia use. That is why they ruled the way they did.

Since practically all militia acts precede modern automatic weapons, the procedure that the court used in 1939 wouldn't be of much use. The court will need to come up with something else.

[BowStreetRunner]

yeah,
Im not saying I want them to rule on a SA case with Miller's logic, because if they did, they could also say, well, these (small pistols, etc.) guns have no militia purpose still, and they are still banned.............
i see what you mean, thanks for the extra insight
BSR

[Waitone]

First, I'm one of those who thinks the SC does not want to decide the issue. It is far more important to many people to keep the issue up in the air.

Second, if the court does decide to rule, I think gun owners better accept the idea they will lose. With the decision the SOCUS issued this week it is plain and evident the court has waded into the culture wars and departed from its traditional "neutrality." It just got through ruling in favor of a small minority of citizens. If you think the court is going to rule on facts of law and clean interpretation of the constitution you are sadly mistaking.

What happened this last week is a clear example of why there is such a war going on over supreme court nominations.

[Gray Peterson]

2) The SC has studiously avoided hearing any case on a controversial matter like RKBA.

Like it avoided a controversial matter like sodomy statutes in the Garner/Lawrence case?

[Graystar]

What happened this last week is a clear example of why there is such a war going on over supreme court nominations. What happened last week? I read all 10 decision and nothing seemed wrong with them.

[Shooter 2.5]

sw442642,

I keep hearing from non-members that if we ever get a ruling, the NRA would be out of business. You have another think coming. The NRA would be overjoyed to finally get a ruling.

Do you have any idea how many ranges could be set up in the cities and states that are unfriendly to firearms?

How many people would need classes and instructions?

How many people would learn to shoot competively?

Not to mention teaching the youth with Eddie Eagle programs in the schools.

This entire country would look like Switzerland. Now that doesn't mean that some of the other gun groups who have never had any programs that instructed or had competitions wouldn't disappear.

[Sergeant Bob]

Also, if there was a clear pro-gun decision, the NRA is out of business. What would be left - three bullseye shooters and some duck hunters?

Even if we managed to get a pro 2nd decision out of the SC, the battle will be far from over. The leftist swine gun grabbers will be even more crazy. There will still anti congressswine trying to pass gun legislation. They never let a little speedbump like Constitutionality get in their way before, I don't think they're suddenly going to see the light then.
I remember leftists saying when Clinton got out of office, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have anything to talk about but, he hasn't had to slow down a bit.

[FPrice]

Based upon what I have seen so far I would guess that the SC would rule that the 2A does protect an individual right but that the Govt has a right to enforce some limitations. They will try to have it both ways.