Could go the wrong way guys.
The Supremes could rule that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Congress and that cities and states can legislate whatever they want.
Course, DC’s special status could also figure in.
It does, because the second amendment was never "incorporated" to apply against the states. Thus this case avoids both that "easy out" for the Court, and the potential "bag of worms" that goes along with that issue.
The Constitution provides that Congress exercises "exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" over the District.
So what are we supposed to do? Did you read the excerpt from Parker in comment# 1? In Muscarello, both Ginsburg and Souter agreed that the Second Amendment had meaning beyond mere soldiering, i.e. it's not just a collective right.
The Supremes could rule that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Congress and that cities and states can legislate whatever they want.
Doesn't tha t violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Course, DC’s special status could also figure in.
That would leave folks in D.C. with more rights recognized than in other parts of the country. That would beg for another court challenge.
“Could go the wrong way guys.”
Boy, that’s for sure. We all thought the SCOTUS would strike down campaign finance reform.
That would be a travesty, since this is about the only article of the Bill of Rights that doesn't specifically direct itself to The Congress. It simply says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I think "BY ANYBODY" is implied.
“The Supremes could rule that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Congress and that cities and states can legislate whatever they want.”
They can’t do that. They can’t rule that one amendment only applies to the Federal government, and then rule that the others apply to everyone. And they’ve ruled that the first amendment is universal.
Given McCain/Feingold and Kelo, this could get VERY ugly.
Mark