[Gilbo_3]

I suspect that DC has no idea how hard SCOTUS is able to hit them with enforcement.

What could the supremes really do ???

Id like to compare that vs what they might actually talk about doing...

[supercat]

What could the supremes really do ???

I'd like to see the Supremes pass a ruling to this effect (never happen I know, though maybe a lesser version could):

1. All free persons have the right to keep and bear arms. No institution of government may legitimately disarm anyone without first demonstrating why he may not be regarded as a free person.
2. No statute or other rule shall be enforced in such a way as to impose a material burden upon anyone's exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
3. Grand juries and petit juries are to be instructed that regardless of anything else a judge or anyone else may say, no free person should be convicted or held liable to the government for non-compliance with a rule or regulation that would have imposed an undue burden on their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
4. In all criminal jury proceedings, and all civil jury proceedings involving the government as plaintiff, the defendant has the right to demand that the jury be supplied a copy of this ruling and instructed to read it. If the state fails to comply with the demand, the defendant shall be entitled to demand a retrial.
5. In jury trials involving the government as defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to demand that a copy of this ruling be supplied to the jury, similar to the right defined above for criminal defendants.

Think that would have some teeth?

[BCR #226]

Well, lets see...

SCOTUS can fine the city. They can send in Federal Marshalls to enforce compliance. They can prosecute the city counsel. They can “clarify” their ruling and give the city a chance to comply. SCOTUS can suspend city operations if it gets extreme.

These are a few options open to SCOTUS.

Mike

[cake_crumb]

"What could the supremes really do ???"

They can have the Justice Dept sicced on them.