Replies

But, with Kelo decision, states, cities and municipalies nationwide now know that they can constitutionally seize private property and sell it to a private developer. Will they do that? Who knows? But the U.S. Supreme Court says they can, and that troubles me.

I see what you're saying, and it's a valid concern. There was also quite a backlash against the Kelo decision, and some good legislation was passed by states and the feds on the subject.

So, for the highest court in the land to rule that "arms" do not include handguns, well, how will the states defend their laws when Sarah Brady and her bunch come-a-knockin'?

They'll say, "But it was just a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption, and didn't affect commerce at all!" ;-)

OK, so that's been tried. Or maybe we'll actually win the Parker/Heller case... Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and... who?

There are lots of potential flavors of "win" which are now possible. You've talked about some potential risks, and made some valid points, but you haven't mentioned the gains we stand to make at all levels of govt if the SC rules in a way favorable to the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

"Or maybe we'll actually win the Parker/Heller case"

That's possible, sure. I just can't see where there's that much to be gained. I don't want incorporation (for the "interpretation" reasons I mentioned), so that outcome, to me, represents a major loss.

In my eyes, the best they could do is to rule an individual right, but do not incorporate -- that will protect us (and the DC residents) from federal law. But I wouldn't expect the '34 NFA to be touched, or the '68 GCA -- would you?

Under that non-incorporation scenario, there's no second amedment protection from state laws (like today). I willing to sacrifice that in exchange for the U.S. Supreme Court keeping their mitts off.