Kelo is a good example - one state passed and acted upon a law, a homeowner challenged it - HE LOST. now with that precedent in place, states all over the country are doing the same thing Connecticut did. its happening all over the place now.
my point is - this decision looks good to everyone here, because the pro-2A side won. and clearly the bounds of this case justified this decision, I am all in favor of it.
but there are alot of twists and turns to the guns laws across all 50 states - carry laws, guns for felons, guns for people with orders of protection against them, some americans want to own automatic weapons, and on and on. do we let the federal judiciary decide all aspects of this? because once they do, everyone gets those laws, in every state.
" because once they do, everyone gets those laws, in every state."
Not exactly. The states could still have stronger protections than the minimum that the Court reads into the 2A. State constitutions can (and often are) read by their state supreme courts to have more protection of rights than the federal Constitution.
Kelo was wrong because it essentially eliminated any REAL check on eminent domain by the federal courts (Despite what the Constitution says on the matter.) At this point, there is NO check by the SCOTUS in the area of the 2A, so any improvement in that direction would be a good thing. At this point, I don't think the Kelo fears are justified.
I don't agree. Everyone would then have the same protection against infringement from state and local governments. Depending on how narrow or broad the ruling, it might overturn many of those restrictive laws.