The more I look and listen the more I see of the plan. The plan was always staring the People and Citizens, in the face, but all Americans heard the confusion and said 'let it lie', that's best. When government take away, government never give back. This is government fundamental, govenment is mental, even when government is at its best.
Fearless prediction:
The Surpeme Court is going to step lightly on the issue of gun ownership, and render a "narrow but split" decision, as it did in the "Bakke" case 'way back around 1978 or so.
Looking back at Bakke, it was [at that time] supposed to be the "be all, end all" case on affirmative action. Bakke was an aspiring medical student who had been denied a place in the medical school to which he was applying because that school had a "quota system" in place, and he was of the wrong race and thus denied by quota.
Instead of biting the bullet and ruling the notion of affirmative action unconstitutional, the Court split its decision: it ruled quotas unconstitutional, but at the same time left open the premise that other factors could be used to promote affirmative action.
So, Bakke "won" (he is a doctor today), but the central issue of reverse discrimination remained UNsettled, as it is today.
So, what does this have to do with the gun case?
I would not be surprised to see a "split decision" from the Court that clarifies the following issues:
1. The Second Amendment of the Constitution DOES grant a right to _individual citizens_ to own guns ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"), but...
2. The Amendment _also_ grants to governmental entities the power to "regulate" gun ownership (hence, "well regulated"), but...
3. Such "regulation" must not be so unreasonable to create an undue hardship for law-abiding citizens ("shall not be infringed"), and thus...
4. The existing D.C. law is ruled unconstitutional on the basis of 1, 2 and 3 above.
The law will be overturned - not "absolutely" because the District of Columbia does not have the power to regulate gun ownership - but rather because those regulations happened to be TOO strict and exclusionary.
But I am NOT expecting the Supreme Court to deny government the power with which to exercise SOME authority and regulation over gun ownership. That simply ain't gonna happen.
This will be an extremely important case, not necessarily in that it will settle the issue once and for all (any more than "Roe" settled THAT issue), but that it will "set the precedent" for all subsequent decisions regarding the Second Amendment (again, as Roe did for all subsequent decisions regarding abortion).
Stare decisis is a foundation of American jurisprudence, and the D.C. case will set the standards by which future cases will be decided - but at the same time leave "wiggle room" so that there WILL be future cases.
- John