Replies

Why would it serve as such a basis? There are many grounds for overturning the Lautenberg Attrocity, many of which would hardly mention the Second Amendment.

True,but this one DOES have to do with the second amendment,and is such a obvious violation that any rational court would have no choice but to address this issue as it pertains to the BOR's. It's the "camel's nose under the tent".

...this one DOES have to do with the second amendment,and is such a obvious violation that any rational court would have no choice but to address this issue as it pertains to the BOR's.

Are restraining orders and injunctions unconstitutional?

True,but this one DOES have to do with the second amendment,and is such a obvious violation that any rational court would have no choice but to address this issue as it pertains to the BOR's. It's the "camel's nose under the tent".

Not really. The Court could throw out the Lautenberg Act as being a violation of Article I.8 jurisdiction, just as they did the Gun Free School Zones Act, without needing to make any reference whatsoever to the Second Amendment.

To be sure, GCA'68 also has some jurisdictional problems though with some slight work and state coopration the felony gun ban could be implemented in such a way as to pass even strict Constitutional muster (making use of the "full faith and credit" clause and the convicted-criminal exception to the Thirteenth Amendment).