The Greatest Gun Battle in History Begins This Tuesday

[Toad]

If they do hear on the individual rights... not avoid it.. they will most likely say that it is an individual right but subject to "sensible" restrictions.. and we will be right back to where we started.

lazs

I think that is a likely scenario. However, it will open the floodgates for more cases over what restrictions are sensible and which are not. In that event, we won't fare very well with either one of the two liberal Senators that will likely be the next to appoint SC judges. Win some, lose some. Had Gore or Kerry won, the bench would already be 2 Conservative, 6 Liberal and 1 Independent leaning Liberal.

[AKIron]

If the SC reinterprets the Constitution incorrectly I vote "we the people" reinterpret the constitution in regards to the SC.

[lasersailor184]

I agree.

[SIG220]

That being said.. it is playing with fire.. no matter how you look at the ruling.. to tell 90 million gun owners.. about half the houses in America.. that they have no right to defend themselves with arms save by the grace of their benevolent leaders that year...

The population of the UK has already been told that by their government.  They have no such right.  And did they revolt? 

As our country becomes more and more a nation of immigrants again, this will become much easier for the general population here to accept.   For all of the immigrants will have no idea what the US Constitution really means.   And they will have no family history of enjoying the benefits of the 2nd Amendment.

_____________________________ _______

[FrodeMk3]

The population of the UK has already been told that by their government.  They have no such right.  And did they revolt? 

As our country becomes more and more a nation of immigrants again, this will become much easier for the general population here to accept.   For all of the immigrants will have no idea what the US Constitution really means.   And they will have no family history of enjoying the benefits of the 2nd Amendment.

_____________________________ _______

That is true. And for those that have family roots' back to the Revolution, more and more lose enough of their roots' that it isn't a big deal for them, either. Even among those that actually own firearms', it is not important to them as to whether or not they have things' like the 2nd. They just want to feel safe. And they believe that laws' can do that. Or that no matter what, they'll never lose their firearms, and that nobody in Gov't. won't try to take them away.

So no, you won't see droves of people out in the streets', protesting about losing the 2nd Amendment. No armed body of citizens' trying to overthrow their gov't. Why, you ask?

Because the majority of the population only see's gun owners as a special interest group, Like anybody else in the U.S. And not something they are willing to stick their necks out for. For any kind of insurrection to succeed, You would have to have the support of the majority of the populace for anything like that to succeed. And you wouldn't have it.

[Arlo]

If the SC reinterprets the Constitution incorrectly I vote "we the people" reinterpret the constitution in regards to the SC.

Yeah cause mob rule is what the *Constitution* really meant when it outlined the vestment of authority to interpret (the correct spelling) the law in relation to said Constitution to the third branch of government called the Supreme Court.

Wait ... no ... you got that wrong. And I'm to have faith in *your* belief in what my Constitution means? 

[Jackal1]

So no, you won't see droves of people out in the streets', protesting about losing the 2nd Amendment.

I wouldn`t say "out in the streets" protesting and I`m not sure what people are like in your area in relation to this subject, but from my area people are very, very interested in this and watching it closely. If the second is tampered with, there will most definitely be repercussions from a mass amount of U.S. citizens in general. I believe the first step would be in the form of paper and phone calls, emails, etc. to lawmakers that are supposed to be doing their job to protect the constitution in the beginning. It most certainly wouldn`t be a quiet, accepted affair.From there..........who knows.
The U.S. is not the U.K. We are not as willing to live under socialism at this time.

[uptown]

 well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


How more clear does this have to be?

If you don't want a gun, fine with me. but I'll be damned if anyone will tell me I can't have one!

The founding fathers have already debated this.......PERIOD!

[lazs2]

frode.. I see your point but I don't think it is fair to compare england to the current America.. not in any way.

the gun owners in england were, by the time of the ban.. pretty much a tiny little minority.. here it is half the homes or more (that will admit it)  they also have a history of trusting their government to the point of blind obedience..

It is true that socialism and the iron grip of government here depend on new immigrants but..  Knowing the mexican ones that I know..  they would not ever give up their guns willingly.. mexicans are not afraid of guns sooooo... I am not sure what immigrants would be a ally to the gun grabbers..  a few metrosexual euros maybe.. that is about it.. the exBrits that I know here own guns.

lazs

[AKIron]

Yeah cause mob rule is what the *Constitution* really meant when it outlined the vestment of authority to interpret (the correct spelling) the law in relation to said Constitution to the third branch of government called the Supreme Court.

Wait ... no ... you got that wrong. And I'm to have faith in *your* belief in what my Constitution means? 

Before there was a constitution there was "we the people". Should the Supreme Court violate that constitution "we the poeple" can rewrite it to ensure that a handful of people picked by politicians don't have the power to revise it to suit their own political agendas.

[myelo]

Oral arguments are up:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

[Maverick]

Yahoo has an article that indicates they feel the 2nd is safe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns&printer=1

[Bodhi]

Yahoo has an article that indicates they feel the 2nd is safe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns&printer=1

Read it, that is horse poop. 

The 2nd does not hold out for any infringement or "reasonable" government restrictions.

[Maverick]

Bodhi,

If you think there will be no regulations on weapons just on the basis of the 2nd, I think you will be disappointed.

If you think that items such as I have seen bandied about on the board here like jdam and cannon equipped weapons will be allowed under the 2nd I am positive you will be disappointed. Those will still be classified as destructive devices and highly regulated. I fully expect class 3 weapons to remain regulated in the manner that they are now. I also expect that restrictions on ownership of a weapon by felons will also remain.

What I do expect as a change will be a widening of the CCW options across the nation and a striking down of outright municipal bans. Just my "prediction" I suppose.

[wrag]

Surprised no one has posted these links yet............

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html

Although the statements may be a little premature!

No actual ruling has occurred at this point IIRC.