If the supreme law of the land already acknowledges that the people have right to keep and bear arms and it shouldn't be infringed, why do we need the supreme court to re-decide the issue?
It's already decided and chiseled in stone. The supreme law of the land cannot be over-written by a state constitution, or any judge, or any state law or any treaty law or any other law passed by congress that is not in pursuance and is repugnant to the Second Amendment. That's why it's called the supreme law. (Article VI, pra 2.)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Do you need a committee to tell you that white is white and black is black? It's self-evident. And so is the Second Amendment.
Even if the Supreme Coiurt did rule that white was black and black was white, the people are going to ignore the court. They already know what the labels for colors are.
In case anyone here is confused and don't know how to read, put your hand on your ass and say, 'This is my ass.' Now dig a hole and point to it and say, 'That is a hole in the ground.'
Case closed!
pra - par
A clean ruling from the SCOTUS could go a long way to redressing this grievance. I'd rather we try this first rather than jumping straight to Rule .308.
Why? Because there are people like FR’s robertpaulsen who insist that it be interpreted in a manner which renders it null and void.