Laws that forbid the carrying of arms

[Sky]

http://patriotpost.us/

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Pretty good sight for those who might be interested

 

[Bohemus]

Thats quote known even here on this side of the Pond. Sadly not many politicans understand it.

(spent four years at university with pistol on hip without harming anyone)

 

[USAF_Vet]

With the Heller decision, and the Illinois CC ban being ruled unconstitutional, an outright ban on carry is unlikely. Any further laws would most certainly be ruled unconstitutional if they were even heard by SCOTUS, which they probably wouldn't be based on the precedents already set.

 

[Baba Louie]

With the Heller decision, and the Illinois CC ban being ruled unconstitutional, an outright ban on carry is unlikely. Any further laws would most certainly be ruled unconstitutional if they were even heard by SCOTUS, which they probably wouldn't be based on the precedents already set.

Heller was what? A 5-4 decision? One or more of the sitting SCOTUS Justices that ruled on Heller may very well retire with newer, differing Justices sitting and their POV will more than likely reflect the thought process of their appointor and confirming Senate... a point to ponder.

 

[smalls]

It's unlikely that SCOTUS will look at Heller again, though.

 

[USAF_Vet]

It's fairly well known that SCOTUS does not look back and redefine old cases after the fact. Certain justices would, if they could, reverse the decision on Roe v. Wade. But they don't, because the SCOTUS becomes irrelevant once they become that partisan. It makes no difference if Heller was decided 5-4 or 9-0. SCOTUS precedent is set, margins don't matter. Future gun related decisions have Heller, McDonald, and the Illinois ban to follow. It is unlikely that SCOTUS would reverse the precedent set by other cases.

 

[Ehtereon11B]

It is actually illegal for SCOTUS to review past cases. By law they are a reactionary branch of government. They can only review laws through a very long appeal process. A great example of this is when SCOTUS upheld Plessy V Ferguson that allowed racial segregation "separate but equal." When social pressure showed seperate is inherently unequal, SCOTUS could not overturn their own conviction. As a result, racial segregation wasn't overturned until Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, KS in1954.