Second Amendment Case Resolution by Supreme Court Will Be Unwelcome to Extremists on Both Sides of ‘Gun Debate’

Cavala,

You’re correct, the court decision will be interesting, and for a few other reasons you do not mention.

You're correct in that they will rule that the 2nd is an individual right. There's not much doubt there. The better question is in the scope of the Supreme Courts ruling..

Will the Supremes say that ruling only applies to non-states, or that it applies to every state? Toss up on either way they will go.

Will they wrap it up into the 14th Amendment (due process)? This was common during the 19th century for other initial Amendments. Not so common now. If that's the case, a bunch of laws under the 9th circuit could get challenged. As the most overturned court, that’s nothing new.

Ironically the current members of the Supreme Court that would favor an individual right, are also the same group that is less likely to push its incorporation into the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have the 2nd Amendment grow some legal teeth? As a protected individual right (with due process incorporated), mentally ill, and felons would still be prevented from legally obtaining firearms but the state would have to have better reasons to restrict/ban anything.

The GOP, and the NRA would loose funding for this perpetual wedge issue, and Democrats would lose the ability to ban firearms (that never lowered crime anyway).

Truly, any case is about timing. This will be interesting.

I am not sure if I agree with Dr. Cavala's guess about the likely outcomes, although he may be right. However, since this is a political site, I think it is interesting to speculate on the long term political effects if the ruling goes in a different direction.

In most of the rest of the country I think there is a belief (which I don't share) that using firearms to protect your home is both appropriate and necessary and that regulations that limit that use in any way, are not only unnecessary, but dangerous.

This belief which I think is common in many states started not with the right wing militia types crazy idea of people protecting themselves from a dictatorial government, but instead started in a lot of farm area's because law enforcement couldn't make it in time if someone tried to rob a family's home. So I think that the support in most states for the almost unlimited right to carry firearms has continued as people in other states have left their farms and moved into the cities. They are used to the idea that everyone has the responsibility to protect themselves.

Idea's like "trigger locks" which I think most Californian's view as common sense, are viewed in some areas as an impediment if a family has to use a gun to protect themselves and in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania where over half of all households have guns and virtually everyone has some type of training in gun use, regulation is hated, irrespective of partisan political belief. The increased regulation of firearms that we have seen in our lifetime has cut heavily for the Republicans and been perhaps their biggest issue in persuading voters to change sides (In 1995 an internal study by the NRA showed that over half their members were registered Democrats)and has made them competitive in states where Republican never stood a chance before and in fact in other parts of the country, one of the most common reasons given for why Bill Clinton is viewed as dishonest is that he took NRA support when he ran for Governor of Arkansas and then flipped when he was elected President.

Unlike Dr. Cavala, I think in the end, the current court is conservative enough that it is likely they will throw out virtually all regulations on gun ownership and use. It will be a close vote, but I believe the odds lean in that direction because a couple of the traditional liberal votes have been on the conservative side on some of the less important gun issues that have come before the court. Given my belief in the likely outcome, the issue goes beyond the fact that this type of ruling will be bad in the long run for the country (which I think it will be), a ruling like this would also raise the question of whether regulation of firearms would become the major issue next year, which would favor the Republicans or whether it would weaken the importance of the issue which would eliminate the reason for a lot of pro-gun Democrats to vote Republican (because they will have won the issue) and that in turn destroying the Republican party in several states which they now compete in.

On the other hand, if the court upholds most of the basic rights of government to regulate the use of firearms as Dr. Cavala seems to believe they will, does the ruling increase the intensity of the crossover vote from pro-gun Democrats and hurt us or help to take the issue off the table and once again help us in the long run?

I am a Republican and actually agree with Dr. Cavala on this one. No regular citizen needs to own 50 calibur firearms and machine guns. Having guns in the home and ready to protect my family is all I care about. I think most would agree on that. I certainly would not want to wait around for the police to show up and save me from an intruder with a firearm or any weapon. I'll handle it myself, thank you. The mear seconds you have to react to save your life or that of your families is completely in your own hands. The police would never arrive in time.

I would never support a ban on guns that would keep me from protecting my family, it's as simple as that. I don't believe this is a Republican or Democrat issue at all. This is having the right to protect your family. We all care about that. I don't support legislation that require trigger locks and other ways of making it more likely your firearm will be of no use when you need it. With a population of 300 million in this country you are going to have accidents and bad things are going to happen. With or without firearms that much is true. We do pretty good for the amount of people in this country. The media always makes things out to be worse than they are and people lose perspective. Facts and figures per capita give you a much picture.

Morris1:

It’s too early to know what the Supreme court will do and the scope of its ruling.

However, if they wrap it up into the 14th (due process) I think we will find numerous cases before the CA and 9th circuit pertaining to the scope of what is 'reasonable.' A 2nd amendment with teeth will mean it can bite back.

Depending on the ruling, I would imagine .50 cal rifles, assault rifles, hi capacity magazines among others items to be contested. If used by the militia, then should be ok for civilians willing to plunk down $2-6,000 for one.

While you may not like such firearms, they are popular. There is no reason for them to be banned.

It may be that banning such items will need more than not liking a characteristic, or two, or what is politically correct.

No doubt CA will argue its own version of 'reasonable'. That line will have to be determined by the courts.

1 battle at a time.

I am a Democrat, by the way, but as any supreme court ruling, this ruling should not be about party affiliation. This is a very interesting case.

There is case precident from a 1939 supreme court ruling. This case is ultimately about the interpetation of the 2nd ammendment, as it was in 1939.

Washington DC does not ban the ownership of rifles and shotguns in people's homes so in essence Washington DC is not violating an individuals basic right to bear arms, only certain types of arms. In this case it is handguns.

What will be most interesting about this case is how the right wing and the left wing of the court rule.

The right wing conservative justices almost always rule in favor of the state's rights and against individual freedoms and privacy and civil rights. The left wing of the court almost always rules in favor of individual rights and freedoms in cases involving our rights to privacy, our first ammendment rights, our fundamental freedoms, and our civil rights.

Some questions to be asked are "What was the intent of the 2nd ammendment when it was written? Did the framers of the constitution want to give people the right to bear any kind of arm, such as handguns and high powered weapons?

Does a well regulated militia, being nescesary for a free nation as the 2nd ammendment says, mean that any person has the right to bear any kind of gun or high powered weapon that they want? Do the words "militia" apply to any person, or only to the police and the military?

This case will ultimately come down to the interpetation of the 2nd ammendment, as it did in 1939, and it will be very interesting to see how the justices rule.

One must keep in mind that in 1939, Miller and his attorney never showed up. With only the government presenting its side of the case (against a $200 tax for a sawed off shotgun moved over state lines), the courts decision was convoluted at best.

The court members at that time.....

1. Had not a single person on it with any military experience.

2. Was not offered evidence that trench guns used in WWI were essentially the same length as that of the sawed off shotgun in question.

3. Was never presented with a definition of a militia.

I seriously recommend anyone interested to pick up the "2nd Amendment Primer" by Adams which goes into both the history of the 2nd amendment, the 6 cases that have already been heard by the Supreme court (in detail), and how its incorporation into 14th Amendment is a critical component into it being taken seriously as a matter of law.

It is all probably a mute point anyway. The Heller case does not address the 14th Amendment, so a ruling made will most likely only effect federal law. Not wishing to ‘rock the boat’ too much, it is more likely the Supreme Court’s decision will be extremely narrow in scope.

I agree that the NRA is a bit nuts. They oppose things like background checks. That is insane. I do not like waiting period, but I can understand them, they are for the guy that sees his wife cheating on him, and decides to get a gun to shoot her. Waiting periods gives him some time for second thoughts. I agree that normal people should not have machine guns.

The only major gun law I have a problem with is the Assault Weapons Bans, federal and the one in my home state of California. The Brady Campaign Says that a things like pistol grips on rifles allow for "hip-firing." Have they ever fired a gun. I have fired many, and I have found that it is much more comfortable to shoot from the hip with a traditional rifle stock grip than a pistol grip. They say that "assault weapons were designed for military use." The AR-15 which the M16 is based upon was originally a sporting rifle that was rejected by the military. The only firearms that were used by the military in the last 40 years was the Remiington 700 known to the Army as the M24 and the Marines as the M40. These are sporting bolt-action rifles that were adopted for use as sniper rifles. They say the a .50 BMG is used by criminals. They are in the range of 40 pounds! Come on, there is no criminal that stupid as to carry around a 40 pound weapon while being chased by the cops. They call them "sniper weapons" but a sniper, the man makes a rifle a sniper weapon. Carlos Hathcock, our best sniper of the Vietnam War used a .50 cal machine gun for his longest kill. The weapon was not even designed for sniping but it was the man that made it so.

There are too many restrictions ! Law abiding
citizens should have the right to protect
themselves . Law enforcement should go after criminals . Criminals do not care about laws
and restrictions. Killers will kill with or
without guns. Also, some law officers and
politicians need to stop deciding in their minds who and what type of firearms people need or should have.

i got a hugh knocker

i love the progress reports and what do u have on handguns

i love the progress reports and what do u have on handguns

Post a comment