When will the Supreme Court have the courage to rule on the 2nd Amendment?

Question

I have been very disappointed in the way that the U.S. Supreme Court sits in lofty debate on other issues while avoiding constrasting 2nd Amendment rulings at the circuit court level.

Resolve the issue and be done with it. This is their job and they owe it to all Americans.

No, I don't want it overturned, I want it clarified (really, re-clarified, because it's obvious it's an individual right).

I want the Supreme Court to rule on this amendment as an "individual" or "states right", and nullify all federal gun control laws.

Answer 1

I look at it like this: the criminals don't follow the laws, so regulating firearms will only put ridiculous and costly restrictions on law-abiding citizens. All the new legislation will just cause more taxes and government waste. There's this quote I'm rather fond of: "An Armed Person is a Citizen; An Unarmed Person is a Subject." While I don't really expect the government to turn into a serious dictatorship, the subjugation need not come from the government. If the criminals will be armed in spite of legislation, while we are not, it is then that we become subjects of the armed criminals.

Answer 2

Very likely now that there is a clear circuit split -- prior to the DC Circuit ruling, every other circuit but the 5th had ruled the same way, so the split wasn't that significant.

Now, with two circuits coming down with the individual rights interpretation, and 4 others with the collective rights doctrine (but two of those only because the others had as well) -- it finally reaches a point where the split is significant.

Besides, if I recall, the US SupCt has already agreed to hear the appeal from the DC Circuit case during the upcoming term -- the only question is whether the individual rights vs. collective rights issue is one that will be argued, or whether DC's status as a non-state makes that a moot point that doesn't need to be addressed given the selective incorporation issue.

That's the thing that makes the DC case unique -- DC is not a state, so it has no sovereign rights the way a state does -- as such, any laws it passes are the same as if they were federal laws -- and given that the 2nd Amendment was never incorporated against the states, there is a significant (and potentially dispositive) difference between gun control laws passed by DC and gun control laws passed by any state.

Answer 3

There's no political pressure to do so despite over 11,000 Americans being killed by handguns almost every year. Firearm deaths dwarf those in Iraq plus those caused by terrorists.

The Democrats have been defeated by the NRA and are now actively seeking the votes of all gun owners, good and bad.

Answer 4

They are planning on doing it this year with Washington D.C.'s handgun ban. Most cities are trying to convince DC to drop the case and come up with a different type of gun control because they are afraid DC will lose. If they do most gun control laws will be unconstitutional.

Answer 5

they have ruled by default

they have left most of the power in the hands of the states

since the 2nd amendment mentions militia intertwined with the right to carry arms, it seems like a state (since militias are technically a state enterprise) issue and not a federal issue

Answer 6

i don't be attentive to what anyone is putting their arms interior the air and cheering for. i've got constantly been waiting to purchase weapons, so of coarse the 2d modification has constantly been there. the only distinction now's that some city's like those you have suggested(D.C., Chicago, San Francisco) might could repeal their handgun bans because of the fact it could intervene with the hot interpretation of the stunning Justice ruling. I agree that the individuals could be allowed to purchase weapons, because of the fact telling the regulation-abiding voters that they legally can't won't supply up the regulation-breaking criminals from getting them in a roundabout way. although, I often locate that this occasion is overused, seeing how very few human beings quite finally end up 'effectively' protecting themselves and their property as a results of a gun. rather, maximum folk say that they like weapons for self secure practices, whilst rather all they do is take it to a gun club to shoot at goals, or circulate searching periodically for the period of the seasons. as long as anyone is to blame, of age, and characteristic no longer committed any felonies, the only exceptions to the weapons you're able to legally be allowed to purchase could be on those that are computerized and characteristic quite great clips. i'm not sure in case you heard approximately this recent capturing that got here approximately in Kentucky presently, yet a guy went on a capturing spree that ended up killing six human beings, because of the fact his paintings supervisor informed him he could no longer use his cellular telephone, and because he does not placed on his secure practices goggles at paintings. If he had a device gun, he might of ok killed 4 cases as many human beings. There are basically too many those that are tousled in usa of america right this moment(Crazies, radicals, college shooters, and so on.), i don't be attentive to if this is our loss of subculture, or if the individuals by potential of and vast are basically getting dumber and greater unreasonable. There have constantly been those that have flipped out and killed random civilians as a strategies lower back as i might desire to undergo in innovations(Charles Whitman, Columbine), yet as time is going on there keeps to be further and extra scumbags that are pissed off and suicidal, who're greater prepared to circulate out in a mass capturing as a replace of basically possessing as much as the BS of in many cases occurring real looking something individuals.

Answer 7

people forget that nowhere else in the bill of rights does it say "shall not be infringed" they didn't say that your freedom of speech "shall not be infringed" they obviously thought that this was a very serious and important issue.

"without guns we are unarmed subjects to the federal govt"

"without guns, when anarchy reigns and the feds loose control, you will have no way to protect the ones you love"

Answer 8

Never, I hope.... these idiotic "I would NEVER own a GUN... I'd call nine one one so I can be dead, dead, dead" people are so stupid they don't realize that the ONLY thing standing between THEM and this government that is wanting to TAKE ALL THEIR RIGHTS AWAY... is the fact that
AmeriKa is GUN OWNING COUNTRY...

The FIRST THING dictators do to enslave the population is TAKE THE GUNS AWAY... but too many AmeriKans are too stupid to see this.

Answer 9

Good luck with that one. It is number 2 for a reason. People will always say " the founding fathers wanted it that way." When we live our lives through what people from 300, 2,000, 6,000 years ago thought we will never fully develop to our capabilities. Living in the past, by the past is a mistake. Use our knowledge and reason for progress, not for complacency. Americans will never go for such a radical change unless "The Newest Testament" should fall from the sky.

Answer 10

Huh? I don't really understand what you're asking.

are you saying you want them to overturn the second ammendment?

they can't. by virtue of its existence, it is constitutional.

the only way to overturn an ammendment is to use another ammendment. look at the 19th ammendment.