Do you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will ever rule in favor of our "Assault Rifles"?

[Deanimator]

I'd contend that freedom of speech, ultimately, is more powerful than freedom to own a gun. There's a reason the Soviet Union used to register typewriters.

Larry

There's a reason they registered guns first.

 

[jdc1244]

The SCOTUS now has a conservative tilt, but they've avoided gun cases like the plague for a while now (with Heller being an obvious exception). During this time period the likelihood of another federal-level assault weapon ban has been pretty minimal, thanks in large part to the party that has been in power. But, this hasn't always been the case at state levels, and more and more states seem to be passing laws to ban modern sporting rifles (aka: "assault rifles"), which are arguably the most popular class of firearms sold today. So far these state-level laws have remained unchallenged by the SCOTUS, but even Justice Clarence Thomas has indicated that he thinks the court has been negligent in not taking on these cases.

So, do you guys think the new, more conservative supreme court will finally tackle this issue, or do you think this is a can that will continue to be kicked down the road?

For my part of it, I'm not holding my breath that they'll address the issue, but I sure hope they do. I live in Colorado, which has turned decidedly blue in the past decade and a half (thanks mostly to Denver/Boulder). During midterm elections the Dems took back the trifecta in our state legislature (house/senate/governorship), and some of these politicians have been outspoken proponents of restrictive gun laws.

The issue is whether an appellate court will rule to strike down a state’s AWB; there’s no indication that’s likely to happen.

All the appellate courts have thus far ruled in favor of states’ AWBs.

And the Supreme Court has refused to hear a case absent appellate courts in disagreement.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Our FOS is already more restricted than our RKBA.

The RKBA is the most important because it's supposed to insure all the rest.

 

[AlexanderA]

So, without attacking individual Justices for their percieved biases, or the two main opposing viewpoints that make up the Court, is it possible to take an emotionally-charged and intellectually-nuanced question like an AW ban and rule soley on the basis of law and precedent?

Probably not.

 

[SilentStalker]

So, without attacking individual Justices for their percieved biases, or the two main opposing viewpoints that make up the Court, is it possible to take an emotionally-charged and intellectually-nuanced question like an AW ban and rule soley on the basis of law and precedent?

I've personally crossed the Rubicon in coming to guns from a liberal, urban, pacifist background. It took me 30 years of living in rural communities, befriending gunnies who patiently mentored me into shooting sports, and living long enough to mature into a more sophisticated and less knee jerk world view about guns and society. The only way I got here was becoming invested in guns as an owner and an experienced shooter.

Unlike any other experience or right guaranteed under the Constitution, guns empower the individual with an extreme power and responsibility seen as a threat by the uninitiated citizen. Therefore, how does a Court rule on something they have less than direct experience of when all the can consider is the abstract balance of Constitutional rights vs. the common good?

Very good points! I’ve asked this many times. However, I am under the belief that it’s really impossible to rule on anything without bias. You can try and set yourself apart and rule specifically on law but I’m not sure there are many humans that could do that without letting their own bias/feelings contribute to the way they rule.

 

[Tommygunn]

Our FOS is already more restricted than our RKBA.

The RKBA is the most important because it's supposed to insure all the rest.

"FOS??"

 

[Deanimator]

"FOS??"

Freedom of speech.

 

[Tommygunn]

Freedom of speech.

Gotcha. Thanx!

 

[rpenmanparker]

Very good points! I’ve asked this many times. However, I am under the belief that it’s really impossible to rule on anything without bias. You can try and set yourself apart and rule specifically on law but I’m not sure there are many humans that could do that without letting their own bias/feelings contribute to the way they rule.

And that is what it is all about. I have to laugh when I hear about "originalists" who are just hiding their bias behind a make believe principle.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I think that the Constitution and law have become the way of the wind; law today is a function of power and numbers, not the law’s intent to control and enforce behavior. I view the wording of the Constitution as a constant, it always reads as it is written however, depending on what belief has the power/ numbers at that time, the “meaning” of the words can take the form of any belief. If conservative beliefs have the numbers, the 2A gives individuals possession and owner’s rights. If Liberal beliefs have the numbers, then the 2A grants those rights to a well regulated militia or the government. The wording of the Constitution has not changed, the power structure is what changes. Whomever has the power dictates the direction of the wind; the words can then mean anything that the power structure wants them to mean. It is sad to know that all of the stability we thought the Constitution granted us is subject to accomplished word smiths and powers that be. Voting is a civil substitute for fighting; fighting is what happens when you can no longer tolerate the results of the vote.

This was an incredibly well written piece. I suspect that you, yourself, are an "accomplished wordsmith."

At any rate, I couldn't agree more. I tend to view the Constitution as similar, but not equal, to the Bible in that what both texts say is the same "yesterday, today, and tomorrow." (This is why I support the principle of original intent.)

 

[AlexanderA]

At any rate, I couldn't agree more. I tend to view the Constitution as similar, but not equal, to the Bible in that what both texts say is the same "yesterday, today, and tomorrow." (This is why I support the principle of original intent.)

The words on the page (of the Constitution) simply cannot be read without reference to 200+ years of judicial gloss (precedent). Take a history course, and then a constitutional law course, and you might begin to get a glimmer.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

The words on the page (of the Constitution) simply cannot be read without reference to 200+ years of judicial gloss (precedent). Take a history course, and then a constitutional law course, and you might begin to get a glimmer.

I wrote a response, but on second thought, meh. Nevermind.

 

[Deanimator]

The words on the page (of the Constitution) simply cannot be read without reference to 200+ years of judicial gloss (precedent). Take a history course, and then a constitutional law course, and you might begin to get a glimmer.

If I wanted to convince people that the 13th Amendment REQUIRED slavery, that's EXACTLY the approach I'd take...

 

[rpenmanparker]

This was an incredibly well written piece. I suspect that you, yourself, are an "accomplished wordsmith."

At any rate, I couldn't agree more. I tend to view the Constitution as similar, but not equal, to the Bible in that what both texts say is the same "yesterday, today, and tomorrow." (This is why I support the principle of original intent.)

No argument with your position. The problem is that the never changing meaning is still subject to the belief of the observer. Even original intent is subject to what the interpreter believes. Thus there is no absolute truth.

 

[Drail]

I believe that there was when the Founders wrote the Constitution.

 

[zeek96]

I fear that the definition the media and uneducated will prevail in the decision. The word "assault" is strong on its own and makes the uneducated think that is the true purpose.
As for the courts I fear that they will say that the cosmetics of a single shot rifle looking like a military rifle will sadly sway the decision to either restrict the magazine to non removable, registration, or required turn in of the firearm. At best they may force people to have to get a class three and at worse default to the states to determine and enforce the state desicions like NY(Safe Act) , MD, and more.
Relying on the Supreme Court alone is very risky and at the end I think it will come down to local law enforcement to to decide and enforce the confiscation and or registration of these type firearms or say no pity localities against each other or local vs state police.
The court is to be impartial but they are people and people are persuade, influenced, and affected by emotion. All powerful factors. The defense of our rights are up to each and everyone of us at every age and level.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Thus there is no absolute truth.

I would strongly disagree with that concept.

 

[AlexanderA]

We seem to be going around in circles. The real question is, is it wise to try to take an AWB case to the Supreme Court right now, when there's a good chance it will rule against us? A state of uncertainty serves our purposes better than an adverse decision.

 

[GEM]

That is an excellent point. IIRC, the NRA wasn't for Heller or similar cases at first as they were fearful of a decision that would go 'militia' so to speak.
Legislative solutions are possible but not probable with the Democrats and sadly the GOP.

As far as local resistance against a ban, once again - so you have a useless gun buried in the yard. You can't compete with it, you can't hunt with it, if you use it in self-defense you will hung out to dry in court, your ex-wife turns you in during the divorce proceedings, you ex-girl friend does when she is made at your (I note this is male oriented and could be reversed or apply to all ex people of any type), your kid babbles at school and Ms. Kindergarten turns you in.

So what you going to do with the forbidden gun? It will be only useful for total civilization fail and/or the 'revolution'. Then you have greater problems.

 

[Tommygunn]

That is an excellent point. IIRC, the NRA wasn't for Heller or similar cases at first as they were fearful of a decision that would go 'militia' so to speak.
Legislative solutions are possible but not probable with the Democrats and sadly the GOP.

As far as local resistance against a ban, once again - so you have a useless gun buried in the yard. You can't compete with it, you can't hunt with it, if you use it in self-defense you will hung out to dry in court, your ex-wife turns you in during the divorce proceedings, you ex-girl friend does when she is made at your (I note this is male oriented and could be reversed or apply to all ex people of any type), your kid babbles at school and Ms. Kindergarten turns you in.

So what you going to do with the forbidden gun? It will be only useful for total civilization fail and/or the 'revolution'. Then you have greater problems.

Nevertheless, I believe many people will keep their guns -- some for the reason you state in your last sentence. Vindictive ex-wives are fully capable of getting ex spouses jailed without gun issues; all they need is yell "RAPE!" or he didn't pay alimony.
There's always dangers in civil disobediance. Some of us are willing to accept those risks.
Some (Ishmaelites) are not.

 

[CoalTrain49]

And the compliance rate will be what... 1-2%?

And when the BATFE starts killing people over it?

Every time an anti-gunner suggests such a thing to me, I recommend that they watch "Michael Collins" and "Defiance" and rethink.

I don't think they have to kill people over it unless you just happen to want to die over it. The compliance rate will be about the same as it was when the NFA passed in congress. After about 10 years most machine guns were registered. Most people are law abiding and will comply. I play by the rules and I have no contraband as most people don't.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Probably not.

It should be clear to everyone that the SC can't rationally interpret the constitution without getting emotionally involved with the issues.

They've read things into 14A (equal protection clause) that stretches the imagination. I won't go into detail but anyone who follows the major SC decisions knows what I'm talking about.

Just be assured that decisions that you think will come out of the SC.............won't.

 

[denton]

Just be assured that decisions that you think will come out of the SC.............won't.

Well, that's true if anything ever was.

Still, I'm fairly optimistic. I think we'll get another new Justice before long, and I think we'll get decisions that we like more than not.

 

[AlexanderA]

Still, I'm fairly optimistic. I think we'll get another new Justice before long, and I think we'll get decisions that we like more than not.

Timing is everything. A case challenging an AWB has to become "ripe" just at the time when we have at least one more pro-2A justice on the court. When that will happen is anyone's guess. I am not one of those who wishes death on any sitting justice.

 

[Deanimator]

I don't think they have to kill people over it unless you just happen to want to die over it. The compliance rate will be about the same as it was when the NFA passed in congress. After about 10 years most machine guns were registered. Most people are law abiding and will comply. I play by the rules and I have no contraband as most people don't.

By that time people will know what's in store for them on all fronts. Compliance will be near nil. Then it's on.