What do you predict will happen on the Federal level?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't make excuses for Scalia - with no offense. I think (and I'm not a constitutional expert) that the decisions went too far in allowing restrictions. They could have hushed up about that. Maybe it was necessary to get votes but I can't tell you that.

Here's another example of what frustrates me:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/us-judge-upholds-conn-gun-control-law/

I can't see the SCOTUS dealing with such crap for years and years. This one says that the CT laws don't affect self-defense. That's in line with reasonable restrictions. A shotgun and a SW Model 10 would handle most incidents so that is all you should be able to get?

 

[carguychris]

The real action will be on the state levels.

Due to continuing partisan gridlock at the federal level, I see state action in response to federal inaction as the "New Normal" when it comes to many contentious issues- including but not limited to gun rights.

 

[2ndsojourn]

From carguychris:
"I see state action in response to federal inaction as the "New Normal".... "

Not to mince words but, I don't see it as 'inaction'. At the federal level, they majority voted a resounding 'NO'. But you're right, the states whose politicians just don't get it will jump on the over-reaching bandwagon.

 

[leadcounsel]

Complete repeal would require near unanimous anti-gun House, Senate, President, and Scotus all at the same time. Extraordinarily unlikely. And it would almost certainly result in significant civil unrest and revolution with huge sections of the population in violent revolt, and states defecting from the union. Never going to happen.

Overturning Heller and McDonald is difficult. However, an anti-gun SCOTUS could hear and vote anti-gun in future cases, with stronger anti-gun language, and say they were wrong in Heller, et al. Unlikely but quite possible.

However, the harassing nature of gun grabbers, with incremental attacks, will continue unless gun owners unit and go on the offensive by passing laws preventing it. Taxes, restrictions on locations to carry, 'gotcha' laws, expanding "Lautenberg" style laws to create larger groups of prohibited persons, making it more difficult for gun owners and gun shops, smaller magazines, banning the use of lead, increasing costs of ownership and target shooting, eliminating shooting ranges, etc.

Their goal is to reduce guns in each household, from generation to generation.

 

[TDL]

Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,012

I think that is on the money.

I agree with all of the listed issues over the next 25 years, except repeal of the second. Repeal of the second is not needed, only a ruling overturning Heller on individual rights. That is not as hard as many people imagine/hope.


I think if you look at this on the level of cultural change; paternalistic government is advancing in all western democracies, including in the US at local state and federal levels -- and so is cultural acceptance of that paternalism.

You will see more microstamping requirements (next will be NY and Md) along with pushes for insurance and smart guns. these will all add costs.

The prognosis on the Supreme court is worse than dire. Actuary tables show we will likely lose at least two court seats, over the next seven years.

I would add:
Major success in reducing gun ranges in every dense populated state.

Continued successful marginalization of gun owners as inherently socially problematic. The pasting the NRA is taking is sticking. yes they got a million new paid members, but the fact that some 55 to 75 million other gun owners wont support them due those owners ignorance on how things work in DC, is sad commentary.

 

[JimDandy]

The pasting the NRA is taking is sticking. yes they got a million new paid members, but the fact that some 55 to 75 million other gun owners wont support them due those owners ignorance on how things work in DC, is sad commentary

Thread necro aside, A lot of gun owners fail to join the NRA not out of failing to understand how Washington DC works so much as an acute understanding of how the NRA works. The first time I got an invitation to join, they wanted you to sign a position paper that I didn't completely agree with. Not something I was prepared to do. They also appear to be as bad as anyone with regards to junk mail, appeals for money, and so on.

 

[Tom Servo]

The prognosis on the Supreme court is worse than dire. We have almost three more years of Obama, followed by a virtually certain democrat win in 2016 given the splits in the GOP. Actuary tables show we will likely lose at least two court seats, over the next seven years.

Shift in Supreme Court ideology take place very slowly. If they were quick to reverse their own decisions, their credibility as arbiters of the Constitution would be thrown into question. Let's remember that almost 60 years passed between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.

A reversal of Heller would also be a reversal of McDonald, and neither of those seems likely.

 

[JimDandy]

Beyond which, We'd have to put a case in front of them. If the court were going to shift like that, people would stop pushing cases to the Court like the States and their reluctance to do so lately. Madigan, San Diego sheriff etc.

 

[ATN082268]

Shift in Supreme Court ideology take place very slowly. If they were quick to reverse their own decisions, their credibility as arbiters of the Constitution would be thrown into question. Let's remember that almost 60 years passed between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.

If the U.S. Supreme Court decided to quickly reverse some of its judicial decisions, it might look bad but that would be about it. Their reversals would likely be supported by either the Republican or the Democratic party, making any practical attempt to remove them from the court nearly impossible.

 

[ATN082268]

Beyond which, We'd have to put a case in front of them. If the court were going to shift like that, people would stop pushing cases to the Court like the States and their reluctance to do so lately. Madigan, San Diego sheriff etc.

A 2nd Amendment Case that goes before the Supreme Court doesn't necessarily have to involve a pro-gun person or organization. Someone with an anti-gun agenda could position a number of cases in the lower courts, waiting for the right makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court to present their "case." Even if a complete reversal isn't forthcoming, the Supreme Court could easily mitigate one of their previous rulings. The recent 2nd Amendment cases were decided with a razor thin majority and it wouldn't take much to go the other way...

 

[Tom Servo]

Their reversals would likely be supported by either the Republican or the Democratic party, making any practical attempt to remove them from the court nearly impossible.

Actually, the court has been accused (by both sides) of something called judicial activism. There have been calls in the recent past to limit the terms of Justices. I honestly think their decision in NFIB v. Sibelius was an attempt to mitigate that.

No body of human beings is completely impartial, and they're no doubt aware of the scrutiny they've attracted over the last decade.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I read a recent law book on the justices' decision processes. The best predictor is their political orientation. They look for past precedents that support these.

There is a uncertainty interval around their core positions, so it is not absolute. Another is that one justice or so might see themselves as a kingpin and varies positions from ideology to wield power.

My bet (worth what you paid for it) is that the current court thinks they did their job on the 2nd Amend. and will not take up any grand game changers.

 

[JimDandy]

So they would decline to hear Peruta if it got there?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm not Rasputin or Nostradamus but I don't see the fire in the belly for more RKBA expansion out of them.

Here's an interesting piece with an intriguing analysis at the end.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ca...-branch-manager-fired-2014-03-25?pagenumber=2

Robert Spitzer, a political science professor at the State University of New York-Cortland, said that courts have tended toward the side of gun regulation since the landmark D.C. v. Heller case in 2008. That was when the Supreme Court justices struck down parts of D.C.’s strict gun-control laws, and said the Second Amendment extends to people owning guns for personal self-defense.

But the justices also “went to great lengths to put limitations on this right and to say that most existing gun laws would be constitutional,” said Spitzer, who wrote “The Politics of Gun Control” and other books on gun policy.

So I'm not sanguine about them. They might just feel that the states can decide what is reasonable beyond a strict application of what they said in the two cases already decided on.

 

[JimDandy]

That's an interesting take, considering the projections in the Peruta thread itself on the size and scope of the circuit splits.

 

[iraiam]

I don't really see any of those happening, at least not within the next several election cycles.

That being said, I admit that have nothing but a seething hatred for the federal government, so I am probably biased in my opinion.

 

[TDL]

A lot of gun owners fail to join the NRA not out of failing to understand how Washington DC works so much as an acute understanding of how the NRA works. The first time I got an invitation to join, they wanted you to sign a position paper that I didn't completely agree with. Not something I was prepared to do. They also appear to be as bad as anyone with regards to junk mail, appeals for money, and so on.

Jim, I do get junk mail, appeals for money from NRA and its affiliate marketing -- just like I get from other issues advocacy organizations.

And I also don't complete agree with the NRA, and consider their occasionally pushing positions on non gun issues, including ones I disagree with them on problematic.

I think Lapeirre was a classic case of wrongly using language and arguments for the troops out in the general public, where it was damaging. I think the NRA should have publically repudiated Nugent.


BUT, I worked in DC for decades. Strategic and tactical mistakes by advocacy groups are the norm. But lack of support by their constituency is harmful to the constituency's interests.
supporting a group because that is what we have does not mean you support everything.

If that were the case no one would support the DNC or RNC, the ACLU, moveon, greenpeace, AIPAC, NEA, NAR (realtors), UAW the Chamber of Commerce, or any group with influence