An America without individual gun ownership: If Heller goes bad.


PDA






leadcounsel
June 15, 2008, 11:06 AM
So, what are your worst case scenario predictions if Heller or other cases go badly for the 2A and the 2A is killed with the stroke of a pen?

1. Significant increase in violent crimes, including rapes, armed robberies, home invasions, car jackings;

2. Significant increase in police and government abuses;

3. Significant numbers of everyday otherwise law abiding citizens being arrested for unlawfully owing a firearm and going to jail over it;

4. Gun trafficking increases;

5. No noticable decrease in firearm homicides;

6. Significant increase in homicides committed with knives or other non-firearms;

7. Significant increase in traffic accidents and fatalities from overpopulated game animals.

Americans would be much worse off without individual firearms, and it's a simple fact that I just don't understand why the antis don't get it. The gains would be negligable at best, and the losses horrific, if guns were completely banned.

If you enjoyed reading about "An America without individual gun ownership: If Heller goes bad." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SCKimberFan
June 15, 2008, 11:08 AM
I prefer to wait and see the ruling first before I go into my "Oh Gawd the world is coming to an end" frame of mind.

Eric F
June 15, 2008, 11:12 AM
worry is a wasteful emotion.

Vibe
June 15, 2008, 11:14 AM
We have only to wait until tomorrow, or possibly next Monday.

Green Lantern
June 15, 2008, 11:15 AM
Indeed - just as I wanna see the ruling before I start dancing in the streets....

I mean, DC isn't even technically a State, right? If the SC wants to, they can word the ruling to where - good or bad - it'll have NO effect on anyplace but DC - right?

Personally, I'm pretty optimistic that the outcome will at the very least strike down the DC gun ban. But not too sure that it can be used as precedent to attack/prevent other future bans in the rest of the US....

Kentak
June 15, 2008, 11:49 AM
You seem not to understand that an unfavorable Heller ruling would do absolutely nothing to the status quo of federal and state gun laws. Except, DC might get to keep its restrictions. Nothing else would change. New restrictions would still have to be legislated by politicians who have to answer to the electorate as usual. Those politicians who are pro-RKBA will still be so, and vice versa. You could completely erase the 2A and we could still have RKBA as long as we keep up the political struggle.

K

John828
June 15, 2008, 11:53 AM
You could completely erase the 2A and we could still have RKBA as long as we keep up the political struggle.

That's a little strong. I know what you're saying, but the statement is a little strong.

La Pistoletta
June 15, 2008, 11:54 AM
But if they declare that "the right of the people" means the well regulated militia, couldn't that open up for some juicy restrictions in the future?

John828
June 15, 2008, 12:44 PM
I think the definition of "militia" has already been well covered. And the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, where mentioning the "rights of the people" are explicitly individual rights and not collective rights.

It would be incredibly surprising to see a ruling counter to that.

chris in va
June 15, 2008, 12:51 PM
and the 2A is killed with the stroke of a pen?

No, it won't. There would be a LOT of angry people protesting in the streets. I would be one of them.

RP88
June 15, 2008, 12:53 PM
But if they declare that "the right of the people" means the well regulated militia, couldn't that open up for some juicy restrictions in the future?

yea. It means that they can pass just about whatever they want against guns, up to and including total sweeping bans. Luckily, the SCOTUS judges understand english much better than the Brady Campaigners.

Nate C.
June 15, 2008, 02:00 PM
Well, depending on who you believe, crime will cease to exist, flowers will blossom and birds will sing.

Also, Montana may secede and see an influx of immigrants.

Tommygunn
June 15, 2008, 02:03 PM
Luckily, the SCOTUS judges understand english much better than the Brady Campaigners.

Too bad they don't understand their own precedent as well given last week's Gitmo decision .... :banghead:

I hope they get Heller right .... but I'm not sanquine about it.

El Tejon
June 15, 2008, 02:40 PM
Oddly, an adverse ruling in Heller would light a fire under the firearms community and would give MCain his only shot of winning in November.

MAKster
June 15, 2008, 02:52 PM
Even if we lost Heller there would be almost no impact of the current situation. Current Federal gun control laws and the restrictive state laws are based on the belief that no individual Second Amendment right exists. If the Supreme Court affirmed such a view maybe some of the most restrictive states might add new restrictions but the states that currently have a pro-individual rights mentality aren't going to flip their view and start enacting restrictions. They would have already enacted restrictions if they were so inclined.

jdc1244
June 15, 2008, 03:12 PM
Even if we lost Heller there would be almost no impact of the current situation. Current Federal gun control laws and the restrictive state laws are based on the belief that no individual Second Amendment right exists. If the Supreme Court affirmed such a view maybe some of the most restrictive states might add new restrictions but the states that currently have a pro-individual rights mentality aren't going to flip their view and start enacting restrictions. They would have already enacted restrictions if they were so inclined.

True. To expand/elaborate/speculate if I may -


In much of the South, Midwest, Free New England, and Mountain West not much would change many states have RKBA in their constitutions. In Kali, NJ, NY, MA, IL anti-gunners would be free to press ahead with more bans and restrictions. Large metropolitan area like Atlanta/Fulton, Miami-Dade, New Orleans/Orleans Parish, etc. would be free to enact DC-like bans with Heller backing them up. The country would turn into even more of a crazy quilt of laws/bans/regulation than today the fight would turn local, in states, counties, cities a kind of legal urban warfare, if you will.

The only recourse with a bad Heller ruling would be amending the Constitution with a clear, unambiguous, modern amendment guaranteeing an individual right to firearm ownership. Needless to say that would be problematic and time-consuming.

El Tejon
June 15, 2008, 03:30 PM
jdc, not the only recourse. Plenty of Supreme Court decisions have been reversed. Dred Scott, Bowers, inter alia, etc.

Acera
June 15, 2008, 03:41 PM
As if that is not bad enough, check out this article on the 1st amendment. They want to take it away also

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The audio link down the left side is a really scary interview.

ArcherandShooter
June 15, 2008, 04:40 PM
If SCOTUS doesn't get it, let's just amend the 2nd amendment to remove that pesky prefix.

Nothing about a militia, here's the updated version, in toto:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Even if the effort failed, we'd still have the 2A we have now.

DoubleTapDrew
June 15, 2008, 04:49 PM
If SCOTUS doesn't get it, let's just amend the 2nd amendment to remove that pesky prefix.
Or just add a word to the first part:
"Although a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,..." I believe that was the original intent anyway.
worry is a wasteful emotion.
+1. There was a quote I heard somewhere that stuck with me: "Worrying is wasting energy on something before it's actually a problem"

wally
June 15, 2008, 06:52 PM
What was it that the British were marching on Concord and Lexington to seize that started the first American revolution?

--wally.

ROMAK IV
June 15, 2008, 09:17 PM
hey are right, a bad Heller decision would have no imediate affect concerning the laws, but it would have a bad one over time. First, the ruling against the 2nd Amendment would actually invalidate the Supreme Court as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, if it hasn't already. I doubt there will be an armed rebellion, but gun control laws are already frequently ignored, as they already are by criminals.

H088
June 15, 2008, 09:30 PM
I am confident they will strike down the DC handgun ban, hopefully much more will happen.

They won't invalidate the 2nd, especially considering the vast majority of people in the US believe its an individuals right.

Gunsby_Blazen
June 15, 2008, 09:36 PM
I have been saying it all along, they will uphold the status quo. Nothing more, nothing less. They wouldn't know what else to do...

SCPigpen
June 15, 2008, 09:41 PM
"But if they declare that "the right of the people" means the well regulated militia, couldn't that open up for some juicy restrictions in the future?"


If they rule that it is a collective right wouldn't the other rights go out the window as well???????????????

denfoote
June 15, 2008, 09:53 PM
If it's time to bury 'em, it's time to use 'em!!! ;)

thebaldguy
June 15, 2008, 10:03 PM
How about all gun owners start forming "Well regulated Militas" per the constitution?

SCPigpen
June 15, 2008, 10:22 PM
the militia has to be called on by the state. Forming your own, standing army is a no-no.

86thecat
June 16, 2008, 12:14 AM
The meaning of the second amendment is easy to understand if any background research is done, just reading the Federalist Papers will show the path. If SCOTUS takes the convoluted path away from the original intent it will be time for each Free Citizen to read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and make his own decision.

Waitone
June 16, 2008, 12:15 AM
A positive Heller decision will give impetus for pro-gun organization to go on the offensive and start the long needed rollback of bad, ineffective, and counterproductive gun laws.

Matter of fact rollback should be the watchword of anyone interested in limit, constitutionally constrained government. It makes no sense to enact "good" legislation and leave "bad" law in place.

Tommygunn
June 16, 2008, 12:35 AM
(T)he militia has to be called on by the state. Forming your own, standing army is a no-no.
While in a way, I agree, what if you're in a state where the governor is either a whoose, or, heaven forfend, a heavy lib himself, and goes along with the Fed program ... do we just sit it out? What say should we have .... WOULD we have???
The idea of a "private militia" is not a particularly easy thing to swallow, but if it's the only alternative?

22-rimfire
June 16, 2008, 12:39 AM
I think that worrying is premature.

I predict a very narrow ruling which changes little except for DC. Individual rights will win, but there will be the question of the state's right to regulate which changes nothing.

Flame Red
June 16, 2008, 10:21 AM
They are going to rule that the Taliban in Gitmo have the right to bear arms next, but citizen's don't.

Legislating from the bench has got to be stopped.

If you enjoyed reading about "An America without individual gun ownership: If Heller goes bad." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!