...but they wouldn't hear this.
Prediction: A Second Amendment case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the next few years, and it will confirm an individual right. However, the ruling will be so narrow that it will not override state interest claims. It will not require a strict scrutiny standard, but rather an intermediate one. And it will certainly not overturn "assault weapon" bans, open the door for viable challenges to permitting schemes, or declare registration mandates, background checks, and similar prior restraints unconstitutional infringements.
In short, we will achieve a "status quo," where the vast majority of "existing gun laws" are deemed enforceable and prosecutable, rather than repealable.
By dancing in the middle, the court will scuff over and camouflage the Constitutional bright line of "shall not be infringed." If you think about it, it's what anyone who wishes to maintain their position of advantage would do: If they say it's not an individual right, they'll have a rebellion on their hands. If they say it's unalienable, well, there goes the government's monopoly of power.
The brutal lesson of history: power is never ceded unless there is a fear of an "or else." Without that fear, we can play around with incrementalism on both sides, and congratulate each other on the fabulous progress we've made. We can maintain the illusion that the system can work, and there are those who won't mind that one bit.
Until "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is demanded, with real and unpleasant consequences for anyone using coercion to impose otherwise, it's all posturing and bluff. Until then, no real victory for freedom can occur.
Tags: Second Amendment, Supreme Court
Prediction: A Second Amendment case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the next few years, and it will confirm an individual right. However, the ruling will be so narrow that it will not override state interest claims. It will not require a strict scrutiny standard, but rather an intermediate one. And it will certainly not overturn "assault weapon" bans, open the door for viable challenges to permitting schemes, or declare registration mandates, background checks, and similar prior restraints unconstitutional infringements.
In short, we will achieve a "status quo," where the vast majority of "existing gun laws" are deemed enforceable and prosecutable, rather than repealable.
By dancing in the middle, the court will scuff over and camouflage the Constitutional bright line of "shall not be infringed." If you think about it, it's what anyone who wishes to maintain their position of advantage would do: If they say it's not an individual right, they'll have a rebellion on their hands. If they say it's unalienable, well, there goes the government's monopoly of power.
The brutal lesson of history: power is never ceded unless there is a fear of an "or else." Without that fear, we can play around with incrementalism on both sides, and congratulate each other on the fabulous progress we've made. We can maintain the illusion that the system can work, and there are those who won't mind that one bit.
Until "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is demanded, with real and unpleasant consequences for anyone using coercion to impose otherwise, it's all posturing and bluff. Until then, no real victory for freedom can occur.
Tags: Second Amendment, Supreme Court