Hypo- Supreme Ct. Rules that 2nd amend is Collective Right

[muggsy]

The Supreme Court would have a difficult time justifying that a militia has any bearing on the ruling when it has already ruled that it doesn't, particularly when all of the other nine rights under the bill of rights have been ruled to be individual not collective rights. You people are worrying over something you need not worry about. If a despotic government came into power they wouldn't be concerned about a Supreme Court ruling. They would come after your guns through executive order and it would be up to you to defend your rights or live under tyranny.

[JohnR]

I don't know about the "hypo question," but States can nullify Federal edicts, so I've read. Not sure how it works, but if the Federal Tyrants declared the 2A to apply only to government agencies, the States could say "FU" and refuse to enforce that interpretation. Then it gets messy.

Didn't they do that in reverse with drug laws? The Feds didn't care.

You can't argue that "the people," as the 2A states, means anything other than individual citizens. And I find it interesting that they worded it differently than other amendments - instead of "Congress shall make no law..." they said, "...shall not be infringed." As in, not Congress, not the Executive Branch, not the Court, not the states, nobody shall infringe it.

States creating "militias of one" is rather absurd, and there's just no consensus to do anything like that.

[Redstate]

Muggsy, have you read the dissents? The decision was a very close one, 5 to 4. They could very easily overturn Heller with one more lib on the court. They would do so with a new case. They don't just go back and say "we are overturning Heller", except through a new case. Given the opportunity, they would overturn Heller in a lib moment.
So, yes, we must be very afraid of hillary or even some rino becoming POTUS.

[Redstate]

JohnR, you are correct that it is an individual right. Also, Breyer, in his dissent appeared to make it a local issue, after after agreeing with the other dissent opinion that it is a collective right. So, if you reside in an anti-gun state, you are screwed. Again, with 1 more lib on the court, the court could easily, in a lib moment, overturn Heller and say it is a collective right and/or dependent on the state in which one resides.

[Longitude Zero]

I do not believe the Sky is Falling on Heller now or anytime soon. When we have had, as now, a predominantly conservative court there have been many liberally decided past cases that could have been gutted by a conservative court and they chose NOT to do so. Is it possible Heller "could" be modified yes it is. Is it likely no it is not. It would help many posters here to read a few books on SCOTUS by the various Justices, and other court watching authors, and see the mindset behind the decisions and how Historical Precedent is a very sacred point of view to virtually all Justices on the court. Roe v Wade is a big one many would like to see overturned and with a conservative majority it has NOT happened yet and in all likelihood will not.

[muggsy]

Muggsy, have you read the dissents? The decision was a very close one, 5 to 4. They could very easily overturn Heller with one more lib on the court. They would do so with a new case. They don't just go back and say "we are overturning Heller", except through a new case. Given the opportunity, they would overturn Heller in a lib moment.
So, yes, we must be very afraid of hillary or even some rino becoming POTUS.

Did you read the dissents in Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal? Did they make any difference or is abortion on demand still the law since 1973. I whole hardheartedly agree that we need to elect as president a good solid conservative of high moral standards to insure a Supreme Court that rules on the constitutionality of our laws instead of legislating from the bench. That's our job.

[muggsy]

I do not believe the Sky is Falling on Heller now or anytime soon. When we have had, as now, a predominantly conservative court there have been many liberally decided past cases that could have been gutted by a conservative court and they chose NOT to do so. Is it possible Heller "could" be modified yes it is. Is it likely no it is not. It would help many posters here to read a few books on SCOTUS by the various Justices, and other court watching authors, and see the mindset behind the decisions and how Historical Precedent is a very sacred point of view to virtually all Justices on the court. Roe v Wade is a big one many would like to see overturned and with a conservative majority it has NOT happened yet and in all likelihood will not.

You da man, LZ.

[JohnR]

Did you read the dissents in Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal? Did they make any difference or is abortion on demand still the law since 1973. I whole hardheartedly agree that we need to elect as president a good solid conservative of high moral standards to insure a Supreme Court that rules on the constitutionality of our laws instead of legislating from the bench. That's our job.

Exactly! Our other job is to make sure there are more of "us" voting. Either get more of us to the voting booth, or grow our ranks. I still don't believe we are a minority, however hard the Maoist Media works to portray us as a fringe group to be stamped out at all costs.