See how we really have nothing to lose and everything to gain?No I don't. If the 2nd Amendment is ruled by the USSC to be merely a "right" of state governments to arm a militia the antis will shift into a full court press to force European style gun control on Americans. Even though some lower federal courts have already made such a ruling, the antis are still held back to some degree by the public perception that the amendment actually guarantees an individual right, which of course it does. If the USSC makes a similar ruling it will be a signal to the antis at every level of government that they can now go all out to pass stricter gun laws.
I think you misunderestimate the political power of the gun lobby in America, and the anger the Court could spark with a bad ruling on this case.
The Kelo decision merely reaffirmed something that was first decided back in the 50's: that "public use" could mean a transfer to a politically preferable private owner. We've been living under that rule for decades, but BOY, were the people PISSED when the Supreme Court ratified the existing state of the law. Soon we had new laws redefining public use in a way more favorable to property owners and less favorable to bureaucrats, and a new federal law denying tax money to "public use" projects like the one at issue in Kelo.
Now, quickly and without using Google, name a property rights lobbying group. Most of you failed.
Name a gun rights lobbying group. Most Americans say "the NRA" though a more correct answer would be the NRA ILA.
Property owners have nowhere near the lobbying power of gun owners, but both share the affection of the American people. Yes, plenty of Democrats love their guns, and believe gun bans are wrong.
The antis couldn't even get the AWB renewed. That should tell you that gun control is just not popular in America. When is a federal law or program just allowed to expire? Far from being a signal for antis to proceed with their stalled agenda, I think a loss in the Supreme Court would be the best thing (financially) that ever happened to the NRA, and would result in lots of pro-gun legislation as a backlash, just like in Kelo.
But you don't have to believe me about the benefits of backlash. Dave Kopel is quite knowledgeable about guns, and he recently
wrote this:
The gun prohibition movement successfully lobbied the Chicago suburb of Morton Grove to ban handguns in 1981. Chicago itself followed suit in 1983, and the suburbs of Evanston, Oak Park and Wilmette also enacted handgun bans.
The Chicagoland bans got a lot of press, and the national backlash against them was powerful. State after state passed preemption laws, forbidding localities from banning handguns. Today, an astonishing 45 states have preemption laws, including Texas and California, whose law has stopped two efforts to impose handgun prohibition in San Francisco.
Why are we even talking about losing and backlash?
The lawyers for the pro-gun case are very good, and are going to win. :D