What Happens If the SCOTUS Recognizes Individual Gun Rights:Not Much Says Lefty NR

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I sincerely believe that the SCOTUS holding for an individual right will have a long reaching, huge impact, in and of itself, on the future of the anti-gun movement.
 
Here's how I see this going. The Supreme Court will rule that the 2nd amendment protects and individual RKBA, and that the DC gun ban infringes on that right. DC will quickly move to pass another law that is slightly less restrictive. It's a very important first step, but no other laws will change, for now.

The second step will be to prove that the 2nd amendment also protects against state and local legislation. Probably someone in Chicago will be the test case for that.

While this is going on, the gun banners will not sit idle. They will try every means at their disposal to enact back-door bans, including impossible qualification tests, outrageous fees and taxes, and so on. This is why the third and most important step will be to establish what constitutes "infringement". This will take many, many court cases as each specific regulation is tested as to whether it infringes on the individual RKBA.
 
Yes, I think the ruling will go a long way in preventing a future AWB. The need for any future AWB will have to show that there is a compelling reason for its enactment.
Click to expand...

I think this is a great point. The issue is that the 76 ban is a blanket restriction on handguns. They lget the ban lifted and sets the precedent relating to future laws, or current for that matter, challenging any restrictions on an entire class of weapons to the point there they are no longer attainable. This might be the approach taken to the machine gun issue. Maybe pre-86 are reasonable restrictions but the 86 ban clearly restricts these guns to near extinction. A new AWB would do the same. Massachusetts is slowly regulating guns out of existence. I think a win in this case will have huge implications.
 
Yes Glen, I think that's a good way to put it.

Plus, IMHO, it's always easier to prevent new legislation than it is to repeal existing legislation. And it looks like the SCOTUS will "repeal" existing legislation. I'm so excited, I'm giddy! :D
 
But a disarmed America was always a fantasy. Policymakers do not make a habit of pushing the constitutional lines in making gun policy. The major restraints holding them back are political, not judicial, and a revived Second Amendment won't change that.
Click to expand...
Might have been fantasy, but it was their fantasy.
Up until now, policymakers could make any policy they wanted, even a total ban on handguns, and the only restraints were political. They weren't pushing any constitutional lines only because they pretended that there were no constitutional lines to push.
With an individual rights interpretation, they will no longer be able to pretend that there are no constitutional lines. This will mean that, even in localities where there are no political restraints, there will still be restraint on the policymakers.
This will be a very big change, and the more anti-RKBA the local political climate is, the more it will be felt.
The banners are whistling past the graveyard, and they know it.
 
The big change, rather, is a spiritual one. Washington has been the American jurisdiction most willing to dream of a gun-free society. For Washington, a Second Amendment that means something would end an existing experiment. It would impose a national norm on a dissenting local political culture. I'd be more sentimental about the end of that experiment if its results over three decades had been more encouraging. Still, whenever a right goes from a norm to a matter of actionable law--something the courts make sure "shall not be infringed"--it does so at some cost to popular sovereignty, a cost that Washington residents seem fated in this instance to bear.
Click to expand...

"It would impose a national norm on a dissenting local culture"????? Isn't that kind of what Brown v. Board of Education did to much of the South??? I don't see the liberals complaining about that one (not that I am, either).

This guy seems disappointed that the Bill of Rights prevents "popular" opinions from depriving people of their rights. Surely, if the "popular" opinion in D.C. was to outlaw Judaism, that would be ok??? Maybe they could take a vote and outlaw homosexuality?? If the majority agrees, that must make it right???? Right???
 
I watched those DC scumbags back slapping each other on C-Span over the weekend---what a sickening display of Communism(absolutely disgusting)---the lady cop in the background with her somber downturned frown was telling.

I have feeling they are in a very rude awakening.

Seems Heller and his legal team could be more well spoken---kept on talking about self defence and never mentioned the true reason for the 2nd---that being defence and revolt from an overbearing tyranical government---reserving the ultimate power for the people.
 
The second step will be to prove that the 2nd amendment also protects against state and local legislation. Probably someone in Chicago will be the test case for that.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they might rewrite their ban to be Heller-proof in order to avoid a challenge and the resulting incorporation of the 2A?
 
Idealists here won't agree, but this guy has it right. This isn't a constitutional/legal fight, but a political one. Has been for a long, long time. It will continue to be, regardless of the Heller decision. If you believe that some future SCOTUS will make some sweeping decision that will remove all "infringement" and return us to some ideal that never was, you are not operating in the real world. That's just the way it is.

K
Click to expand...

(...Being very careful in my wording here so as not to get this very good thread locked...)

And all the people on this board/in the pro-gun/pro-hunting community who don't believe in a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment will be vindicated.

"See! The SCOTUS agrees with us! You don't have a right to hunt with a machine gun!"

I'm hoping for somthing more than a narrow ruling. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I saw some of the justices looking for more that a narrow ruling, to put some of the these issues to bed, so that we won't have to wait another SEVENTY YEARS for another LAW ABIDING gun owner to get his day before the Supreme Court.

It's high time the 2nd Amendment was Incorporated. I hope Justice Scalia is writing the opinion for the majority.
 
user=Winchester 73
Excellent point and it goes right to the heart of the most salient feature of the Second Amendment,"shall not be infringed".
It's maddening that such clear language has to be debated at all.
But the last 75 years of Socialism(thank you so much,FDR)has brought us to such an impasse that we have to sweat out a SP Court decision for 3 months on words in the BOR that for so long were accepted on this simple principle:they mean what they say.
Click to expand...

+1
 
user=Snapping Twig
Just like the babies they are, the left sees the writing on the wall and in an effort to rise above it, they say, "it doesn't matter".

(if it didn't matter, they wouldn't be fighting)
Click to expand...

They are priming the pump... subliminally getting the people to accept the next wave of gun control that "doesn't infringe" the Second Amendment.

And the pro-gun people will be so happy in their revelry, they won't even know what's happening... they'll vote YES on another DC gun law that restricts ownership, use, and self defense, similar to most of California.

Once this law is out... forget baby steps... the only thing the pro gun people in DC should vote yes on is "Vermont Carry" or unrestricted "Shall Issue" like Alaska, otherwise they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

We've got to stop being nice. We've got to act more like the zealots that defend Roe v. Wade. We've got to stop being active only after when we're oppressed.
 
Oh, one more thing...

If the Supremes thought machine guns were out of the scope of this ruling... then why did they bring it up?
 
Oh, one more thing...

If the Supremes thought machine guns were out of the scope of this ruling... then why did they bring it up?
Click to expand...

Because it is an obvious law that will be struck down by an individual ruling. When you combine an individual right with Miller and with very few crimes being committed by MG (or even by "assault rifles" in general"), then a total ban is not a "reasonable restriction" and qualifies as an infringement.

I.E. the MG "registry" (ban) WILL be Unconstitutional .
 
All speculation at this point, of course:

The main question in this case seems (to me) to be how much direction the SC will give on what regulation is permissible. It may tell DC simply that it went too far and try again. The ruling must decide the constitutionality of the DC law, but need not do any more than that.

I assume that at least some ballpark guidance will be given. Some clear violations of the term "infringement" would be nice, but the Court may just give a few examples of obvious violations.

Practically, registration seems to be a given (as being acceptable under the Constitution) and this would not offend me. Waiting periods? Would the SC state that 3 days is OK but 30 days goes to far as an infringement? It seems likely that plurality (not majority) opinions on any of these details will be issued. How much will they decide now and how much will be left to future cases?

The exercise of political power often trumps what is constitutional or legal. This is a rare case where the SC will actually analyze the specific wording of the US Constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top