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

[Redstate]

I posted this on a different forum and thought I would try to get some input from fellow Kahr Talkers.

What if the SCOTUS rendered a decision after we get a new lib as president and god forbid one of the conservative judges is replaced by another lib. stating that there is no individual right to bear arms under the second amend.

My focus here is whether, to overcome this hypotectical decision, a state, particularly a guns rights red state could essentially declare each of its citizens to be a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
I think that such an act would be appropriate, constitutional and would overcome any such ridiculous decision by the SCOTUS. As to those in blue states that are gun-unfriendly, I think you would be screwed.

Of course, the next question would pertain to the definition of "well regulated" as would be interpreted by the SCOTUS.

Your thoughts on this, would be appreciated.

Edit: emphasis added in bold.

[diablo53]

Most gun owners are also tax payers. I think the government would go broke trying to take our guns!!

[berettabone]

I think a lot of lives would be lost, if the gov't EVER tried to take firearms away from U.S. firearm owners............................................ .................................................. ....

[TheTman]

The Militia is EVERY free and law abiding, able bodied male citizen (now I assume it would be every able bodied male or female) that is able to bear arms in defense against, a tyrannical Federal Army, a foreign army, or other hostile force. (Indians, outlaw gangs, cattle rustlers, Mexican bandits raiding across the border, etc.) We are expected to supply our own weapons and ammunition, which we will bring to the fight. I would assume that in order to be an effective fighting force, we would need to have weapons suitable for use against a well equipped armed force, including civilian versions of common battle rifles. Basically the same as the famous "Minute Men". If they meant to outlaw high capacity weapons, they would have done that, as there were various weapons that could produce a faster rate of fire than the common muskets and rifles of the early days of the United States. There was the air rifle that Lewis and Clark used to impress the Indians along their route that could fire several lethal rounds in a relatively short time, as well as early Gatling gun type flintlocks, pepper box pistols, and other such weapons. They were usually quite expensive which is why they weren't adopted for the revolutionary war. There are also commas between the clauses, which means that each clause should be able to stand on it's own. I look at it as stating the problem: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and the solution: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Basically, most of us are the Militia. I believe they let you off if you were over a certain age, or had a medical condition that limited your ability to fight. As for the well regulated part, the Sheriff of a county is the supreme law enforcement agent in that county, and we should fall under his command, unless he a traitor, in which case you'd have to figure out something else. I think in most cases, a leader would emerge that the people would follow, an ex military officer, or someone that people would rally behind.

[muggsy]

The Supreme Court did no such thing. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Heller V. Washington D.C. that the the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. All that the Supreme court did in the case that you are discussing was to refuse to hear the case which is their prerogative. The Supreme Court doesn't hear every case that comes before it. Our right to keep and bear arms is what is referred to as settled law. Every member of the NRA should know that by now. Ted Cruz wrote the amicus brief and testified before the Supreme Court in this case. The best reason for you to vote in a conservative president of good moral character is to insure that the Supreme Court doesn't lean any further left as the Supreme Court Justices retire from the bench and need to be replaced.

[Longitude Zero]

Under the principal of Stare Decis it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would make such a stunning reversal of established law. They are especially prone to uphold their previous decisions and not make significant alterations.

[Redstate]

Get 5 libs on that court and you will see how fast they overturn precedent.

Yet, no one has adressed the question. Maybe it was kinda buried in the post or poorly written. The question is in a nutshell: if the hypo takes place, can a state sucessfully overcome the decision by designating everyone of its citizens (with certain prohibited classes) a part of the militia by enactment of a state law. Again, I think it can.

[SlowBurn]

Hypotheticals can be fun. But the real answer is that if the court were to reverse Heller merely because of a change in its membership, such an unprincipled court would have no problem brushing aside a statute that all adults in the state are serving in its militia.

[Redstate]

Hypotheticals can be fun. But the real answer is that if the court were to reverse Heller merely because of a change in its membership, such an unprincipled court would have no problem brushing aside a statute that all adults in the state are serving in its militia.

True, but it is an easier stretch to say the right is collective and not individual. It would be a long and difficult stretch that would have to be made to limit the right of a state to determine it's militia. On the other hand, "well regulated" may be the point of attack.

[muggsy]

Get 5 libs on that court and you will see how fast they overturn precedent.

Yet, no one has adressed the question. Maybe it was kinda buried in the post or poorly written. The question is in a nutshell: if the hypo takes place, can a state sucessfully overcome the decision by designating everyone of its citizens (with certain prohibited classes) a part of the militia by enactment of a state law. Again, I think it can.

You seem to have missed the point. The Supreme Court has already ruled the the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right just as are the rights found in the other nine amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. The issue of a militia has no bearing what-so-ever on your right to keep and bear arms.

[Redstate]

You seem to have missed the point. The Supreme Court has already ruled the the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right just as are the rights found in the other nine amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. The issue of a militia has no bearing what-so-ever on your right to keep and bear arms.

No point missed. The point is that 5 libs on the court could just as easily say it is a collective right, and not an individual right. You are correct that the issue of milita has no bearing on the current state of the interpretation of the second amend.

[Longitude Zero]

You seem to have missed the point. The Supreme Court has already ruled the the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right just as are the rights found in the other nine amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. The issue of a militia has no bearing what-so-ever on your right to keep and bear arms.

Agreed.

[knkali]

Under the principal of Stare Decis it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would make such a stunning reversal of established law. They are especially prone to uphold their previous decisions and not make significant alterations.

Stare Decisis not decis. In case a member wants to look up that legal term--good point btw. I think the OP is focusing on the militia as a possible argument for said hypo decision by the SCOUS. Nothing more.

[Redstate]

... I think the OP is focusing on the militia as a possible argument for said hypo decision by the SCOUS. Nothing more.

Thank you. You hit it on the head. If one reads the dissents in Heller, the dissenters would, in a second, should they become the majority hold that the 2nd Amend provides for a collective right, and not an individual right. Of course, there would have to be a case that makes it up to the Court.

[TheTman]

Black's Law Dictionary defines the Militia as "The body of soldiers In a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army". The founding fathers saw it more like every free and law abiding able man, capable of bearing arms, to defend against a tyrannical federal government, or any other hostile force, such as Indians and outlaw gangs, pirates, or other organized groups meaning to cause harm to the population, or their property. There was quite a bit of fear of a standing army in the early days of the Republic, and militias were preferred over standing armies. Militias were very important in the Revolutionary War.

I think we have more to worry about from the Federal Government manipulating us into a civil war, and then declaring personal ownership of firearms forbidden, under a State of Emergency, than we do the Supreme Court. I think a State of Emergency is more likely than Martial Law, as the President retains power in a State of Emergency, while the military takes control under Martial Law. The shadow groups that manipulate the government, seem intent on disarming us one way or another. It would be much more difficult for them to seize control of the nation while the population remains armed.