[thackney]

The Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to change the Constitution.

[rktman]

Shhhhh! Apparently they don’t know that. Don’t let on.

[Timpanagos1]

“The Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to change the Constitution.”

Yes, but they can rule that any state or federal bans or regulations are constitutional.

[pierrem15]

Legally, no. But politically, yes: they have claimed repeatedly over the last 60 years the Constitution means whatever they say it means, no matter how absurd. And they have gotten away with it.

The "gay" marriage decision was a shot across the bow-- if they can get away with that, they can get away with anything, including abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

Look for them to "amend" the First Amendment also to prohibit "hate speech."

[ealgeone]

I thought the same thing until they started finding all kinds of rights that weren’t listed or mentioned in the document.

[Above My Pay Grade]

They cannot officially change the Constitution but they can uphold gun control laws that blatantly violate it.

If the SCOTUS completely ignores the Constitution and uphold massive Federal confiscation of guns, I think civil war would be the result.

[GregoTX]

The Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to change the Constitution.

But they have the power to "interpret" the Constitution. The ACLU says that the 2nd Amendment is not about private gun ownership, it is about the militia being armed and regulated. Eric Holder made a similar statement once after the Heller ruling. 5 SCOTUS members do not have to change or repeal the 2nd A, but they can gut it by "interpreting" what a militia is, and how the 2A is about an armed and regulated militia.