Anti-gun Supreme Court

[sierra11]

Can an anti-gun supreme court rule the second amendment out of existence ? I'm worried if Obama appoints another liberal justice the 2A will suffer.

[gunsandrockets]

Yes!

Can an anti-gun supreme court rule the second amendment out of existence ? I'm worried if Obama appoints another liberal justice the 2A will suffer.

Your fear is perfectly reasonable. And supported by the last major ruling the Supreme Court made regarding the 2nd Amendment, the case of McDonald v Chicago.

The four member losing side of that decision all but said they wanted to overturn D.C. v Heller! On that losing side was new Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor, who had claimed during her testimony to the U.S. Senate during her confirmation hearing that she would respect the precedent of D.C. v Heller. She lied.

So far Obama has replaced two anti-gun justices with shiny new anti-gun justices (though to be fair we don't know for certain about Kagan yet, but no one sensible would take that bet). The real danger is if Obama has a chance to replace one of the five pro-gun justices with an anti-gun justice. But considering the ages of the justices that danger is all but certain within the time of the next elected Presidential administration.

[alfred1222]

Can an anti-gun supreme court rule the second amendment out of existence ? I'm worried if Obama appoints another liberal justice the 2A will suffer.

To answer your question, the supreme court can't rule a part of the constitution unconstitutional. They can however, rule against it to basically make it impossible to exercise our right to keep and bear arms.

[CDFingers]

Regardless of what the fearful folks fear, it is impossible for the SCOTUS to over turn a constitutional amendment. A completely new amendment would have to be developed and passed by 2/3 of the states.

Don't listen to the fear mongers. Read your constitution.

CDFingers

[adrenaline]

They can however, rule against it to basically make it impossible to exercise our right to keep and bear arms.

The question is...if that DID happen...

What would be the next step?

[stix213]

Heller & McDonald are the law of the land, and a future SCOTUS is unlikely to overrule them. A future SCOTUS though can rule on other aspects of the 2A that could make it near meaningless.

For example, a future SCOTUS could rule that the right to bear arms refers to in your home only. They can rule that excessive taxation of ammunition is legal ($100 tax per round for example would kill gun ownership). They can make rulings that enlarge prohibited persons to include anyone with any record of illegality at all, including breaking the speed limit. They can make rulings on what kinds of guns are legal and illegal, for example banning all semi-auto rifles. They can rule that a police officer can confiscate any firearm on sight, for officer safety.

The list goes on and on. Heller and McDonald gave us a good platform to start this fight, but it didn't do a whole lot more than that if future cases don't reinforce them. Everything other than keeping a single handgun in your home with 1 mag of ammo is still up for grabs, with few exceptions.

[SilverTauron]

Can an anti-gun supreme court rule the second amendment out of existence ? I'm worried if Obama appoints another liberal justice the 2A will suffer.

Your nightmare is their pefect dream. Some of the leftist thought want Obama re-elected for this precise reason;another liberal appointment or two , and not only will the "colonial and outdated" 2nd Amendment be ruled into irrelevancy but so will the rest of the Constitution.

With a liberal elite in charge of SCOTUS,nationalized healthcare , more expansive social welfare programs which wouldn't pass Constitutional muster today, and expanded gun control are completely on the table for options. The Constitution will be interpreted right out of practical relevance.

[Ford8N]

They can however, rule against it to basically make it impossible to exercise our right to keep and bear arms.

Yes.

And they will.

[davbog44]

This is the danger of the idea that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" subject to having it's meaning change with the times, and the opinions of nine individuals.

First, there is no reason to write a Constitution if the intention is to have what it says mean different things at different times. Secondly, the idea of a "living, breathing" Constitution politicizes what is supposed to be an independent, apolitical judiciary.

In theory, there should be no such thing as liberal or conservative justices. But sadly, that isn't the case anymore, if it ever was.

So yes, a future High Court could absolutely effectively nullify the Second Amendment; there are four justices on the Court right now who would. And even the ones who were on the right side of Heller and MacDonald don't seem capable of completely understanding simple English words like "Keep" and "Bear."

[SanPedroShooter]

Do we have enough solidly pro gun states to run a Constitutional convention?

What do we need 2/3 of the legislatures in 2/3 of the states? How about a 2A rewrite...?

I know some states and some fed lawmakers have written in things like protection for hunting and lead ammo and exluding guns that dont enter interstate commerce from NFA. I wonder what states like Idaho, Arizona or Texas would do about a SCOTUS end run around the 2A?

Would they, could they somehow overide them? For intrastate guns and gun parts at least?

[nocomply25]

The question is...if that DID happen...

What would be the next step?

we shoot!!!

[SilverTauron]

Do we have enough solidly pro gun states to run a Constitutional convention?

What do we need 2/3 of the legislatures in 2/3 of the states? How about a 2A rewrite...?

NEIN!

The political dynamic currently is that a lot of our voting population is concentrated in pro-liberal anti-rights cities. While "state" wise we have the Disarmament Lobby checked, the populations of NJ, NY, CA,HI and nearly all of the east coast have free America dead to rights numerically.Best case scenario a Constitutional Convention would degrade into an entertaining exercise in gridlock;at worst the liberals would hijack it and delete any reference to personal liberty in the new document.

Assuming our side prevailed,a rewrite of the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says would result in some convoluted statement like :

" The right to own, maintain, transfer, possess, move,operate,sell, purchase, repair, or receive arms in addition to the right to carry, concealed behind a covering garment or shirt or openly exposed for viewing to the general public, in a case,inside of, or outside of a holster, at all times and at all places including government buildings and offices operated by state , city, and Federal facilities,including historical monuments and operational offices, as well as all universities and scholastic buildings at all grade levels currently and any scholarly institution to be initiated in the future, in addition to the right to carry on military installations concealed or openly, will not under any and all possible and conceivable circumstances be taxed, revoked, regulated, superseded, cancelled, deferred, nor will additional requirements be added to require the exercise of this fundamental personal right afforded to all living U.S. citizens enumerated here."

Even with all that, I don't doubt for a second someone in CA would find a loophole in that run on paragraph big enough to sell a tissue-paper thin argument for may issue CCW and an Assault Weapons Ban somehow.

[sholling]

Regardless of what the fearful folks fear, it is impossible for the SCOTUS to over turn a constitutional amendment. A completely new amendment would have to be developed and passed by 2/3 of the states.

Don't listen to the fear mongers. Read your constitution.

This may be technically correct but for all intents and purposes it's 100% wrong. All that is required for an Obama Supreme Count to completely eliminate the right to keep and bear arms is for it to overturn Heller and declare that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right only and not an individual right. That would effectively end the right of individuals to own or carry weapons and allow congress and states to pass complete bans. That was the status of the 2nd Amendment under the old pre-Heller 9th Circuit interpretation of the 2nd Amendment so don't say it can't happen.

If you want to look for other examples of where the Supreme Court has interpreted away constitutional rights you need look nor further than the POI clause of the 14th Amendment which has been a dead letter for better than a century.

[sholling]

Do we have enough solidly pro gun states to run a Constitutional convention?

Probably not but it really doesn't matter. The states passed the 14th Amendment in an attempt to overrule a solidly racist Supreme Courts' efforts to block Congress from enforcing constitutional rights for freed blacks like the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court simply interpreted the Privileges Or Immunities Clause nearly out of existence. The words are still there in the constitution but they no longer mean what they say. So in answer to your question even if the states ratified an amendment stating that "The right of individuals to keep and carry weapons of all types shall not be regulated or limited" the court can just interpret that to not apply to guns, knives, or clubs.

[Wherryj]

Regardless of what the fearful folks fear, it is impossible for the SCOTUS to over turn a constitutional amendment. A completely new amendment would have to be developed and passed by 2/3 of the states.

Don't listen to the fear mongers. Read your constitution.

CDFingers

That is a rather naive statement. This is how it is supposed to work, but with the SCoTUS being responsible for "interpreting" the Constitution, they can merely interpret the 2A into oblivion.

We have far too many "judicial activists" on the high courts. Our rights are hanging by a thread. Politically appointed political activists now get to decide what the Constution "REALLY" says.