[Cboldt]

Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Raich. Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, trying to distinguish agreement with federal power over pot from his (supposed) disagreement with federal power of guns in school zones, per Lopez.

The state laws that aim to disempower the feds over firearms are going to be found unconstitutional by every Circuit that takes up a case. SCOTUS is apt to deny cert, but if it takes up a case, it will agree with the Circuit. The only way the feds will be reigned in on this is by force of violence. I'm not advocating that, just saying that no part of the federal government is going to relinquish a hold on the power to regulate firearms at the personal level.

[tacticalogic]

The only way the feds will be reigned in on this is by force of violence. I'm not advocating that, just saying that no part of the federal government is going to relinquish a hold on the power to regulate firearms at the personal level.

If they will not give it up, we're going to have to take it back. The longer we wait, the less likely it becomes that we will still have the means to do so.

[MileHi]

That must be it. I recall being disappointed.

[Still Thinking]

SCOTUS is apt to deny cert, but if it takes up a case, it will agree with the Circuit.

But SCOTUS has a built-in conflict, so any state that feels bound by an adverse SCOTUS decision (when the decision empowers the feds) probably needs their collective head examined.

The only way the feds will be reigned in on this is by force of violence.

Unfortunate but probably true.