Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[rwilson452]

If the Supreme Court rules the only way to get it changed is a constitutional amendment or get the court to reverse itself. The chances of either of them happening is, well, like a snowball in hell.

Now you know why this case is so important. It's the final word. now on the bright side we would still have state constitutions in some states.

Originally Posted by ham385

Stupid question...I should have payed attention in 5th grade. Heres what I remember. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the courts interpret it.

From what I understand, once the court rules, the only way to change that is to appeal to a higher court or change the law.

What happens if the SC decides it's not an individual right? Is that it then? From now until the end of time, individuals have no right to keep and bear arms?
There's no higher court, and I think it's going to get awful chilly in hell before anyone 'revises' the constitution.

From what I understand, popular opinion says it is an individual right. If the worst happens, is there no way to reverse it?

Somebody please tell me I'm wrong...I'm scaring myself.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by ham385

Stupid question...I should have payed attention in 5th grade. Heres what I remember. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the courts interpret it.

From what I understand, once the court rules, the only way to change that is to appeal to a higher court or change the law.

What happens if the SC decides it's not an individual right? Is that it then? From now until the end of time, individuals have no right to keep and bear arms?
There's no higher court, and I think it's going to get awful chilly in hell before anyone 'revises' the constitution.

From what I understand, popular opinion says it is an individual right. If the worst happens, is there no way to reverse it?

Somebody please tell me I'm wrong...I'm scaring myself.

In the unlikely even that the US Supreme Court says there is no federal individual right to keep and bear arms, the federal gov't could more severely regulate guns under the commerce clause (like they do with NFA stuff) if they felt like it. Either the feds leave it alone and leave it to the states as they have been or the hysterical left steps in and we get sweeping federal laws.

[awkx]

Originally Posted by rwilson452

If the Supreme Court rules the only way to get it changed is a constitutional amendment or get the court to reverse itself. The chances of either of them happening is, well, like a snowball in hell.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of a Constitutional amendment so fast. In DC v. Heller, 31 states filed a supportive amicus brief. And, 39 states have adopted shall-issue CC permits (or don't require a permit at all). Only 38 are needed for an amendment.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by awkx

I wouldn't discount the possibility of a Constitutional amendment so fast. In DC v. Heller, 31 states filed a supportive amicus brief. And, 39 states have adopted shall-issue CC permits (or don't require a permit at all). Only 38 are needed for an amendment.

i don't think it will come to that. i really don't see this supreme court ruling against the 2nd amendment in this case.

this is a perfect case. and we have at least 5 justices who i would be very surprised to see not apply the 2nd amendment as it reads.

of course, you never know...

[rwilson452]

according to the schedule I just read. The orals for DC Vs Heller will be broadcast on CSPAN on the 18th starting at 11:30. I didn't think they did that???

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by awkx

I wouldn't discount the possibility of a Constitutional amendment so fast. In DC v. Heller, 31 states filed a supportive amicus brief. And, 39 states have adopted shall-issue CC permits (or don't require a permit at all). Only 38 are needed for an amendment.

I should probably look this up before opening my mouth but I thought the Bill of Rights was something not subject to amendment and the framers made sure foolishness on the part of the people wouldn't screw up our fundamental rights? If they could see this case my bet is they'd just shake their heads in disgust. We need 5 of 9 judges to tell us we have the individual right to keep and bear arms? Do we need 5 of 9 judges to tell us water is wet or the sky is blue? Bizarre.

[awkx]

Originally Posted by rwilson452

according to the schedule I just read. The orals for DC Vs Heller will be broadcast on CSPAN on the 18th starting at 11:30. I didn't think they did that???

They only do it for exceptional cases. An audio recording of the Heller oral arguments will also be up on the web somewhere.

[awkx]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

I should probably look this up before opening my mouth but I thought the Bill of Rights was something not subject to amendment and the framers made sure foolishness on the part of the people wouldn't screw up our fundamental rights?

The BoR, like most of the Constitution, is subject to amendment via the process stipulated in Article V. The only part that is not amendable is that states cannot be deprived of their equal representation in the Senate w/o their consent.

[RugerNiner]

The 2nd Amendment will be upheld but with restrictions, just like the 1st Amendment is.
Don't expect any changes just because of a favorable ruling.

[rwilson452]

I have been musing about the case and gazing into my crystal ball. It seems to me the way they are addressing this they don't want to address the bear part of the amendment. This would suggest to me they want a second bite of the apple. I suspect they intend to have two levels of scrutiny one to keep arms and one to bear arms. There can be no doubt that someone will equate bearing with keeping, so it will once again the 2nd will reach the high court.