Replies

"In a perfect world, the Supreme Court will take these cases, find a personal right, and incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states so we would have national protection of the right to bear arms."

Maybe.

Keep in mind that once the second amendment is incorporated it applies to all the states. More importantly, how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the second amendment also applies to all the states.

Can't happen? We've recently seen the court rule that nude dancing and flag burning are protected speech, but political ads days before an election are not. Abortion is a right to privacy as is homosexual sodomy. The Kelo decision. Freedom from religion. On and on.

Do you want them also interpreting the second amendment?

If five liberal justices on some future court say that "keep" means keep in a state armory, "bear" does not include concealed carry, or "arms" do not include handguns, then every state must abide by that.

Abide by what? Is the SC going to force Florida to rescind concealed carry laws? How would that work, exactly?

Now, maybe Congress could pass a law saying the carrying of concealed weapons affects interstate commerce and is prohibited, and the SC could uphold that interpretation of the commerce clause and say it does not violate the second amendment, but without the help of Congress, I don't see how they do anything about state concealed carry laws. And Congress can't do anything about it without the living document interpretation of the commerce clause.

Once the Supreme Court decides that the right to bear arms is an individual right, there will be incredible reliance on that fact, individual as well as corporate. Additionally, the language of the amendment, as well as the circumstances leading to it are sufficiently clear that once an interpretation is made, the court could not easily change their position without discrediting themselves, and because the language is so clear it is hard to imagine the evolution of a legal principal undermining this right. So, this would be a very strong case for stare decisis as outlined in Casey and would be hard for liberal courts to attack.

Lastly, the court’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would set a minimum amount of protection that the states would be required to give arms. Any future Supreme Court decision reinterpreting the second amendment would reinterpret this minimum, not the maximum amount of protection required. Thus, we would be in the same situation as now, except we would have a minimum level of protection in every state.