Possible Second Amendment challenge

It would be a *good time* to argue to the courts and finally put the last nail in the coffin of that bogus national guard thing, because the Congress recently passed a law that gives control of state national guards to the POTUS & fedgov, even of the objections of the state's governor!

Now if the purpose of the 2A is to protect against the fedgov and its standing army (and it is), then how is that purpose effected by limiting it to those who are members of state national guard, who pledge allegiance to the fedgov, and are under the ultimate control of the fedgov????!!!!
 
Ever since the rooskis and chinese started referring to "The People's" this and "The People's" that, this stupid use of the phrase "The People" has become common. Look at the rest of the constitution...

When it says "the people have a right to redress the government for grievances" (or something simmilar, the wording is close to this, at least), does this really mean that the government has a right to redress the government for grievances? Does the right of "the People" to free assembly apply only to the government?

Of course not. The Supreme Court should go ahead and make this point well known again. "The People" tend to forget every few decades and should be reminded.:D
 
I doubt the high court will even hear the case because if they use the actual writtings of the time they will have to strike down all federal firearm laws.
Click to expand...
They may be dragged into hearing it, screaming and kicking. IIRC, if two Federal appellate courts issue conflicting rulings, the Supremes must hear the case to resolve the conflict.

Best case scenario: DC loses the case. That will mean a Federal ruling supporting the individual rights interpretation of the 2d, which conflicts with the 9th Circuit's collectivist interpretation.

Keeping fingers crossed. From what I've read in news articles and other forums, at least one of the judges (Silberman) seems highly skeptical of DC's collectivist arguments.
 
Um Gary? The 5th Circuit with Emerson in 2001 ruled the 2A is an individual right... We are still waiting for the Supreme Court to resolve the split between the 5th and the 9th.

I will admit that if the DC Circuit rules in favor of the individual right, things may look better. BUT! The Supreme Court doesn't have to take a case if it doesn't want to. Period.
 
Antipitas said:
Um Gary? The 5th Circuit with Emerson in 2001 ruled the 2A is an individual right... We are still waiting for the Supreme Court to resolve the split between the 5th and the 9th.
Click to expand...

The 5th Circuit ruled in favor of the individual right in Emerson, nicely shooting gaping holes in the collectivist theory. The 9th Circus... er.. Circuit has supported the collectivist theory. The 9th Circuit, historically, has been the most overturned appellate court in the country. IIRC, the 2nd Circuit in NY/CT/VT has also supported the collectivst theory too.

I'm dubious of the outcome of the D.C. case, however I would love to be pleasantly surprised. If the D.C. court upholds the 2nd Amendment, it may find a way to NOT strike down the D.C. handgun prohibition, leaving that to other courts.

If SCOTUS finally resolves the matter in favor of the classic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (i.e. an individual right) there will be two more steps to complete. First will be incorporation of the 2nd under the 14th Amendment (extending the BoR to the states), making it protected even against the argument of a State's power to pass its own laws.

Second will be determining the scope of "infringed". Certainly waiting-periods are an infringement. So would requiements to purchase any sort of special ID card to exercise the right (CA/IL/MA/NY etc). Does a state law prohibiting you from having a rifle with a 20-round magazine "infringe" on your rights? Does a state law prohibiting the sale of a handgun without certain features (chamber indicator, locks, etc.) infringe? Do conflicting state laws, as a whole, infringe? Can ownership of machine guns be prohibited?

If we do get a victory, I would anticipate the anti-gun states suddenly increasing their scrutiny of FFLs and making a big deal out of the smallest errors in an effort to limit the number of sources. FFL dealers would be wise to make sure their paperwork is squeaky clean.
 
Nothing will happen. The SCOTUS will avoid the case like the plague. The current state of limbo will continue indefinitely.

The 2A is the red headed step child of the Bill of Rights and most justices, right and left, just wish the issue would go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top