It would definitely be Chaos to the extreme.
Stupid notion.
Nothing. Gun owners would chortle and continue downing shots of whiskey.
They are written in order.
First must be repealed first.
Let them chew on that.
It would never happen
It takes a lot to repeal an amendment
More then just a supreme court, the supreme court is not even part of the process
Nothing really. If they can’t find 11 million illegals how’re they going to find 300 million firearms? Then there’s those boating accidents.
CW-II.
Next question.
They would bleed.
The same question was asked about slavery. just sayin’.
Molon Labe.
Law abiding gun owners would become outlaws.
You would need a constitutional amendment. Though a lefty court might say its defeated but you have 300 + million gun owners who could overrule that.
It wouldn’t just be repealed.
An amendment would be proposed and states would vote to create a new amendment overriding the Second.
Oh, and then the revaluation 2.0 would begin.
Oh...we might hear from some quarters the usual, “Not on this hill” or “Rule of law!” Then, nothing will be done and life will go on as usual.
NOTHING.
Geez, does ANYONE remember what Negative Rights are?!
It was so held by this Court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 92 U. S. 553, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 36 U. S. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States."[citations omitted]
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
One will note that that the federal courts chronically lied about this case, falsely claiming that is stands for the proposition that states MAY prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.
Note too, in Cruickshank, plaintiff was trying to have the constitution apply to private citizens.
Now, at rock bottom, all government is, is brute force, and the only way to contain it is by brute force. Governments are not constrained by constitutions and laws. Government use constitutions and laws to turn the people docile.
The Supreme Court cannot repeal any part of the Constitution, they can make interpretations, but they cannot repeal any of it. There is a separate process that has nothing to do with the Supreme Court, right?
Now I see the RINO’s letting obama have his pick and I see the new leftist lineup on the SC very hard on our liberties, especially the 2nd Amendment, but the way this article approaches it is nonsensical.
Bzzzzzzzzzzt!........What is...CWII Alex. (Trebek)
The lakes of America would be filled with guns that fell off people's boats. {wink}
