Replies

Right, my bad. At 1032, you said:

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?

I think an unincorporated individual right is kind of odd. Apart from your fear of how it might later be construed, is there some reason the RKBA is special, and should not be treated like others in the Bill of Rights?

As to what might fall, would the ban on new machine guns pass strict scrutiny, or the "assault" weapons ban if it were reenacted? I don't think the machine gun one could pass. We used to be allowed to make machine guns, now we're only allowed to have those made prior to 1986. Eventually, all of those will break, and then there will be none. A complete ban. Will that pass strict scrutiny?

I think that if they find that the 2a protects an individual right, the idea will have to be that it has something to do with individuals who might join a militia to help defend their society, and who would "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Our soldiers carry M-16s.

They might want to protect their neighborhoods from lawlessness after a natural disaster, or they might be fighting Chinese troops, or there might be a domestic insurrection of some kind or a threat from the federal army, as the Founders envioned. Mojave seems worried that gangsters will have serious firepower. If there is a war in Aztlan, or whatever the Mexican separatists call the Southwest US, I'm worried that gangsters will be the ONLY ones with serious firepower.

We don't know what threats the next 100 years may bring.

I would like to see them find in favor of the individual rights interpretation and incorporate that decision against the states. I think (and judging by the amici, lots of gungrabbers agree) that the result would be lots of attacks on lots of gun control laws everywhere, many of them successful. I also think it will never happen.

They already missed one opportunity to announce that they would take the case. That means there are not 4 who want to take it. I doubt they will change their minds, nor comment. They will refuse the case without comment.

"Apart from your fear of how it might later be construed, is there some reason the RKBA is special, and should not be treated like others in the Bill of Rights?"

Like Scalia, I'm a big believer in original meaning. The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. I've said it many times, incorporation has done more to destroy federalism that the Commerce Clause can ever hope to. I don't want any of the Bill of Rights incorporated.

I've seen what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to the Bill of Rights with their interpretations. I've seen what they've done to religious freedom in this country. We have a one-size-fits-all government, with five justices dictating to us what a 13-year-old can wear on a t-shirt to grade school in Akron, Ohio.

"A complete ban. Will that pass strict scrutiny?"

On machine guns? Yes. On assault rifles? Yes. On assault-style weapons? I doubt it. But none of that will come from this case -- Heller is really narrow.