Scalia and Thomas probably voted against granting certiorari precisely because they support the Second Amendment and feared the majority would disagree with them,
Bull. -- They could have issued a statement supporting the 2nd, without any such 'fear".
creating a devastating precedent where the Court actually adopted the so-called "collective right" theory.
Did you even read the article? -- It noted:
"-- Without issuing any opinion, the Court this year denied the petition. The Silveira case was never to be heard. It was over.
When a petition is denied by the Supreme Court, the minority of justices who favored granting the petition sometimes issues a statement to that effect. Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, two reputedly "conservative" justices on the Court, did not even issue that statement for the Silveira petition. They could have noted the issues of extraordinary importance, e.g. the connection between a powerless citizenry and genocide; they said nothing."
We gun owners would be outraged by a "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
Exactly my point. This is probably why Scalia & Thomas said nothing. They are not prepared to back the 'Individual Right to Bear Arms, imo.
just as we were outraged by the CFR decision gutting the First Amendment.
Speak for yourself. I, and thousands of gun owners do not share your opinion that the 1st is "gutted".
However, the chance of getting a constitutional amendment to change either is between minuscule and nil. By taking a Second Amendment case to SCOTUS now without a more favorable makeup, we fundamentally jeopardize the Second Amendment.
How so? Do you really think the government can get away with outright violating our RKBA's?
The incremental approach advocated by the NRA has actually been working quite well.
In losing our rights, a bit at a time? -- You bet.
About two thirds of the states in the country now have shall issue CCW; ten years ago it was less than half of that.
'CCW' laws, unless framed like New Hampshire's, are in effect licensing regulations, -- permits that can be regulated away as easily as they are 'given'..
Being able to argue for these laws on the basis of the Second Amendment is one reason we were able to pass them. A current "collective right" interpretation by SCOTUS would seriously jeopardize our efforts to pass these laws. The bottom line is we need to reelect President Bush and enough Republican Senators to break the DemonRats' judicial filibuster. Then he needs to appoint solidly conservative lower court judges and SCOTUS justices who can be counted on to rule in favor of the Second Amendment.
Dream on. Our judicial system is totally infiltrated with closet socialists. We can't 'count' on ANY of them.
The time to take a Second Amendment case to SCOTUS will be when we have that makeup, not before. With some good fortune, it might come sooner than we think, like in the next two or three years. Until then, we need to hang on and keep chipping away.
As I said, I've heard that song for 40 years now. Get a new tune.