SCOTUS ruling as ammo?

[Mr White]

I was thinking last night about possible scenarios following from the SCOTUS ruling this summer.

One of the things I wonder about is when they rule that firearm ownership is an individual right that shall not be infringed, how far will they go in that ruling? Will they go so far as to overturn past gun control statutes, or will they just rule that RKBA is an individual right, not a collective one and stop there?

If they stop there, how much could that ruling be used as ammo for the NRA or others to challenge existing gun control legislation? Could a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court realistically make it possible to overturn the 1934 NFA, the GCA of 1968 or the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986?

We have the potential to be heading into some very good times. How much of a kick in the balls would it be to Hillary to head into the White House with a SCOTUS ruling like that staring at her? Try to take our guns now, Bey-otch!

Don't take this as head in the sand, rose colored glasses, blind optimism. I know it could play out a LOT differently that that. I'm just thinking aloud about our best-case scenarios.

 

[rr2241tx]

We should wish. Realistically, I think SCOTUS will rule that the lower court ruled correctly and go absolutely no further.

"We the People" are screwed come January 9, 2009 no matter which Leftist gets into the White House because they all want to repeal the Second Amendment. Only the smallest details of the method of accomplishment will change based on who wins. We set ourselves up for a forced dearmament when we dearmed Japan at the end of WWII. They have never forgotten and now will use economic threats to force our politicians to dearm us, just like they did in Australia. They are already doing a bang up job of forcing BATFE to refuse to approve Form 6s on the basis that military surplus ammo and rifles are "war materiel" and have no sporting purpose. Joe Biden has just re-introduced the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban, just setting the stage...

By it cheap and stack it deep always was good advice. You might want to start buying AKs & SKSs by the case and bullets by the pallet.

 

[ForeignDude]

Although I am not as pessimistic about the outcome of the case as my colleague above, I am still cautious about sounding victory before the ruling is in.

Things could go against us. It is still possible that the Court might allow their prejudices to guide the ruling. For example, they could argue against an individual right based on the "extensive damage" that guns cause in society, the "evolving consensus" that firearms are no longer necessary as an instrument of liberty, and "international law" and "civil society norms" that have found "no universal human right of self-defense" (remember that one?) and consequently no right to possess those instruments necessary for self-defense.

I do recall that the Justices consulted "international law" and an "evolving consensus" when reaching their decision in Roper v Simmons, where they ruled that application of the death penalty to minors is unconstitutional.

This is by no means a sure thing, folks.