“Is that what you want?”
It’s the start of the football season and all of us fans start looking at the schedule and trying to count up the wins to see what our teams record will be. Some people say we shouldn’t do this,
Well...
I’m going to do this with the current Supreme Court. After doing it, it looks to me like we should strike while the iron is hot. I feel pretty confident in four votes (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas & Alito) one could swing either way (Kennedy). Here are a few things to consider.
1. In the 9th circuits ruling they cite a dissenting opinion for Muscarello written by Buzzy Ginsberg and joined by Souter where they define bearing arms in the second amendment to be beyond soldiering and for private purposes. In other words, are these two now going to flip flop from their original private ownership of arms stance?
2. If this is taken up by SCOTUS for the fall or during next years term, it will be in the headline news and the presidential candidates will be asked and have to go on record of their thoughts on the case.
3. Leading liberal scholars such as Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitcz have written that there is no question that the 2nd amendment gives us an individual right to keep and bear arms. At least I can respect Dershowitcz’s position, while he agrees with me about the second amendment, his solution is not to make restrictive gun laws. It is to repeal the second amendment. I’d rather have my enemy in front of me than sneaking up on me when I least suspect it.
4. If SCOTUS upholds an individual right just imagine all of the gun grabbing laws that could be opened up to be shot down. (so to speak)
5. If SCOTUS does not uphold the individual right, I don’t see politicians passing more restrictive gun laws. It’s political suicide. In other words, it remains as is until we can get another constitutional judge on the bench and try again.
6. If worse comes to worse, move to a state like mine (Pennsylvania) where the state constitution guarantees a right to keep and bear arms.
From Pa constitution: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
theres no militia clause to muddie things up for lawyers and judges.
It doesn't give us anything, by it's very terms it assumes a preexisting right which "shall not be infringed".
That's not going to help much if it's the Federales who ban the guns, as 'rats and RINOs will do if this decision goes the wrong way. But they'll do it anyway, just more slowly, if the Court doesn't rule at all.