Anti-gun Supreme Court

[Wherryj]

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.

... and if the amendment states "Guns" the ant-rights court could say, "but not ammunition". We'd have to make sure that Alan Gura, Don Kilmer, Micheals, etc. al...ALL write the amendment VERY carefully-and that still probably wouldn't matter.

[The War Wagon]

"Rights" are inalienable, and GOD-given; NOT, "Supreme Court-approved."

They may 'rule' the 2nd Amendment void - they may nullify the ENTIRE Constitution - they may rule the moon is made of green cheese, and the sky on a cloudless day is actually colored MacLaren field tartan plaid... they're 'ruling' it thusly, does NOT make it SO.

Besides which, should such a day ever come, that's why the 2nd Amendment was CORRECTLY observed & recognized as such by the Founding Fathers in the FIRST place.

[nick]

My paranoid mind tells me that this is one of the reasons 2A cases are being stalled in the system right now.

[wireless]

I think you are correct in thinking that and that you are not being paranoid at all.


Hopefully we can win Federal Reciprocity at the congressional/senate level and then states like CA, IL, NJ, HW can't do anything about it.

I don't have a good feeling about how 2A cases at the judicial level.

[Exile Machine]

Our right to self defense against tyranny predates the constitution. If this right is ever ruled out of existence, that's a sign that the government is illegitimate and our cue to exercise our Right to alter or abolish it.

-Mark

[BlindRacer]

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.

I found one. The right to use, practice with, be proficient in, use in self defense, blah blah blah. Also, I didn't see anything about all types of ammo being legal. So usage ban and ammo ban, and making the use of the item in self defense be illegal, would nullify everything you wrote.

I'm sure even beyond that, there are tons of other loopholes. Those were just the first ones that I saw.

I think it has to be short sweet and simple. No frills, cause when there are frills, they go after grammer. And as we've seen from the current Amendment, they can't even read that one correctly.

[vantec08]

If COTUS is "living" or "dynamic", that means its changeable by political whim or fancy. It is no longer a Constitution. Charter, perhaps, but not a Constitution. I read an article by a "progressive" NLG type who claims its legal to negate parts of the BOR because every lawsuit, including those at the SCOTUS level, close with "and any other remedy the court deems just." We are living in the most dangerous era in our history, and I have zero doubt SCOTUS can be stacked with one more "progressive" and literally shred the BOR. Even if things settle down next year or so, we will pay for 40 years of "progressing" for a long long time. Like LBJ (great society, nam).

[dfletcher]

The Supreme Court has thus far decided we have the right to possess only a single gun in our home for self defense - correct? Everything else is open to their interpretation. That ought to be enough to desire our present President not be allowed to further influence the court.

While the court honors precedent and from what I've read prefers a certain continuity there are examples of SCOTUS reversing their previous decisions - Brown overturned Plessy, Lawrence v TX was a reversal, so was CU I believe. Lochner v NY, Adkins v Children's Hospital, Chisolm v GA, Adler v BOE, Bowers v Hardwicke, Pace v Alabama, Austin v MI CoC, OR v Mitchell and Wolfe v CO are examples of previous decisions reversed by SCOTUS. More info .....

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases1.htm

A SCOTUS reversal is uncommon. The "they're only being fearful" criticism of those with a concern misses the point. Actually, it doesn't address the point that the court does on occasion change its mind. I suppose it allows gun owners who support the President to beguile themselves into believing there's no risk to be run. I'd be more concerned about how the finer points are decided, but a concern regarding reversal is legitimate, I think.

[interstellar]

In the meantime, I recommend you take Robert up on his offer to help you get a lifetime membership to the NRA for $300 - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=556869. Also, give a donation to CalGuns and SAF (http://www.saf.org/).

[alfred1222]

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

What would be the next step?

The revolution begins?

[vincewarde]

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

While technically correct, in practical terms your statements are absolutely false. SCOTUS can - while leaving a constitutional provision "on the books" - effectively render it meaningless by adopting an interpretation that has that effect.

As others have pointed out above, 4 of nine justices have voted TWICE to do exactly that in regards to the 2nd Amendment by ruling that it only protects a "collective right" to serve in the militia. In Dread Scott, SCOTUS went far beyond any slave state court by ruling that black slaves were not legal persons, but mere property with absolutely no rights whatsoever.

The high court - if the justices are dishonest and have an agenda - can rule any of our rights out of existence. This is why the founders established a system of lifetime appointments, in hopes of isolating the justices from politics.

The only "fix" for such a ruling would be another crystal clear amendment establishing our gun rights so clearly that the justices would risk impeachment if they attempted to "rule it out of existence".

The good news is that such a move is extremely likely, given that 41 states are shall issue or better. Even Obama could not stop it as it does not require any action on his part.

[SpunkyJivl]

Our right to self defense against tyranny predates the constitution. If this right is ever ruled out of existence, that's a sign that the government is illegitimate and our cue to exercise our Right to alter or abolish it.

-Mark

That is the founding reason for the 2A!

[CDFingers]

You all saying "it's technically correct but" do not reason well. You invent highly unlikely scenarios, then run around with your hair afire.

But in your defense, freedom is untidy. I do certainly enjoy our Wild America.

CDFingers

[tankarian]

You all saying "it's technically correct but" do not reason well. You invent highly unlikely scenarios, then run around with your hair afire.
CDFingers

...sigh
Hopeless....

[sholling]

You all saying "it's technically correct but" do not reason well. You invent highly unlikely scenarios, then run around with your hair afire.

But in your defense, freedom is untidy. I do certainly enjoy our Wild America.

CDFingers

Denying reality does not mean that reality does not exist and denying history does not mean that history never happened and you my friend are in full denial mode. Our "scenarios" have happened in the past which when combined with the record of Obama appointees makes them those "scenarios" not only plausible but likely.