Comments on: Could be the one http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/08/17/excellent-3/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:00:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/08/17/excellent-3/comment-page-1/#comment-114390 Xrlq Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:29:42 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/08/17/excellent-3/#comment-114390 Reason, I agree that a common-sense ruling by the Supremes would not roll back the 20,000 gun laws on the books, in no small part because most of them are <i>not</i> unconstitutional. It would, however, roll back the ones that clearly are, such as the outright bans in Chicago and DC, or extremely onerous licensing scheme in NYC. Depending on how broadly the court read the part about <i>bearing</i> arms, it may even end may-issue and no-issue CCW, or at least require the states to choose between allowing either concealed or open carry, on that theory that allowing one but not the other constitutes a reasonable regulation, but prohibiting both is an outright infringement. More importantly, perhaps, having all three branches of the federal government on record saying the Second Amendment means what it says would significantly affect the debate on <i>every</i> gun law that is debated from now on. Take the "collective rights" canard off the table, and suddenly EVERY debate is about whether gun regulation X or gun law Y serves a purpose soooooo important as to justify further burdening a God-given, <i>constitutional</i> right. A loss, by contrast, would be a relatively minor setback. Few if any serious legal scholars are going to suddenly jump on the "collective rights" theory just because the Supreme Court did; they'll simply point out that the case was incorrectly decided, as they've said about many other cases in the past, and will say about many others in the future. Did any of us stop thinking the First Amendment protects our right to political speech when the Supremes upheld McCain-Feingold? On the flip side, anti-gunners would indeed be emboldened by a Supreme Court nullification of the Second Amendment, but seeing as they've been claiming for decades that the Supreme Court has already done that, I'm not sure where else they could go if they suddenly had a real Supreme Court decision on their side. "OK, so maybe we were lying for the past 50 years, but it's true now! Honest." Reason, I agree that a common-sense ruling by the Supremes would not roll back the 20,000 gun laws on the books, in no small part because most of them are not unconstitutional. It would, however, roll back the ones that clearly are, such as the outright bans in Chicago and DC, or extremely onerous licensing scheme in NYC. Depending on how broadly the court read the part about bearing arms, it may even end may-issue and no-issue CCW, or at least require the states to choose between allowing either concealed or open carry, on that theory that allowing one but not the other constitutes a reasonable regulation, but prohibiting both is an outright infringement.

More importantly, perhaps, having all three branches of the federal government on record saying the Second Amendment means what it says would significantly affect the debate on every gun law that is debated from now on. Take the “collective rights” canard off the table, and suddenly EVERY debate is about whether gun regulation X or gun law Y serves a purpose soooooo important as to justify further burdening a God-given, constitutional right.

A loss, by contrast, would be a relatively minor setback. Few if any serious legal scholars are going to suddenly jump on the “collective rights” theory just because the Supreme Court did; they’ll simply point out that the case was incorrectly decided, as they’ve said about many other cases in the past, and will say about many others in the future. Did any of us stop thinking the First Amendment protects our right to political speech when the Supremes upheld McCain-Feingold? On the flip side, anti-gunners would indeed be emboldened by a Supreme Court nullification of the Second Amendment, but seeing as they’ve been claiming for decades that the Supreme Court has already done that, I’m not sure where else they could go if they suddenly had a real Supreme Court decision on their side. “OK, so maybe we were lying for the past 50 years, but it’s true now! Honest.”

]]> By: Reason http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/08/17/excellent-3/comment-page-1/#comment-114384 Reason Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:59:03 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/08/17/excellent-3/#comment-114384 <blockquote>This could be the case that gets to the supreme court.</blockquote> And what if it does? Do you think that even an affirmative supreme court ruling on the second ammendment is going to just roll back the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws that are on the books? In my opinion, nothing good can come from a 2nd Ammendment supreme court case. If we lose, the floodgates of legislation open. If we win, probably nothing of substance happens. Then again, if we lost and gun bans started popping up all over the place... Maybe some gun owners would finally get "active".

This could be the case that gets to the supreme court.

And what if it does? Do you think that even an affirmative supreme court ruling on the second ammendment is going to just roll back the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws that are on the books? In my opinion, nothing good can come from a 2nd Ammendment supreme court case. If we lose, the floodgates of legislation open. If we win, probably nothing of substance happens.

Then again, if we lost and gun bans started popping up all over the place… Maybe some gun owners would finally get “active”.

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/08/17/excellent-3/comment-page-1/#comment-114345 Xrlq Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:33:28 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/08/17/excellent-3/#comment-114345 I'm not surprised it's in federal court, but would be surprised if the federal violation was the only one asserted. That's not clear from the story, but assuming the lawsuit challenges the city under both the state and federal constitutions, it may be necessary to keep the federal question alive for the federal court to have jurisdiction to hear the case. [I say "may" because a question of federal law is not the only possible basis for federal court jurisdiction here, just the most intuitive one.] I’m not surprised it’s in federal court, but would be surprised if the federal violation was the only one asserted. That’s not clear from the story, but assuming the lawsuit challenges the city under both the state and federal constitutions, it may be necessary to keep the federal question alive for the federal court to have jurisdiction to hear the case. [I say "may" because a question of federal law is not the only possible basis for federal court jurisdiction here, just the most intuitive one.]

]]> By: markm http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/08/17/excellent-3/comment-page-1/#comment-114306 markm Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:47:16 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/08/17/excellent-3/#comment-114306 I'm a little surprised that this is in federal court at all, since the Louisiana constitution has a stronger and clearer RKBA. I’m a little surprised that this is in federal court at all, since the Louisiana constitution has a stronger and clearer RKBA.

]]>