Heller - Would they really revist it?

[JonB]

Since 2A hasn't been incorporated, how many states include a 2A type of provision in the State Bill of Rights?

I looked up SD (where I live) and we have section 24 which states 'The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.'


After I posted this I thought I would look up IL and heres what I found:
'Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

The first phrase is interesting....

 

[cbrgator]

granted, for time immemorial it has seemed that the 9th circuit has been extremely liberal, however, the panel that is hearing this case appears to be strongly pro-2nd amendment. In the past, this wouldn't have meant squat because they were bound by prior decisions but Heller changes that landscape entirely.

Well, I was unaware a such a panel existed in the Ninth. I guess we found the needle in the haystack. Can't wait for the decision!

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Stare Decisis states that the existing ruling has the preponderance of law behind it, and when not given a reason it is different, it will stand.

While lower courts tend to stick with state decisis, the SCOTUS doesn't necessarily do so. From Wikipedia:

In the United States Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases:

Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions.... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause. Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).​

For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.[5] The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).​

On matters such as this stare decisis isn't a sure bet.