If the Supreme Court rules you aren't allowed to own firearms ...?

Question

are you going to turn them in ? Resist ? Stock up on ammo before the ruling ? Form a well regulated militia ?

While a limited ruling is probable, what about the main question....what would you do ?

RTO, there isn't anything in the Constitution that spells out who can form a militia. During the Colonial period, each town and community had thier own militia.

Ken- you underestimate gun owners...and the deep rooted beliefs that Second Amendment supporters have. So will the government that tries to take the firearms away.

Answer 1

They will not be turned in...

The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of patriots--
Thomas Jefferson
...and by traitors.

Answer 2

I'd keep mine. And probably stock up on ammo ahead of the ruling.

Individuals cannot form a well regulated militia.

It's moot however. The correct ruling, and the one I anticipate, is that the federal and state governments may regulate firearms with regard to type and whatnot, however outright bans, or regulations that are so tight or administered in such a way as to amount to a ban, on firearms ownership are unconstitutional.

Militia governence is not spelled out in the Consitution, correct. The founders didn't junk it up with stuff like that. However, if you read closely, the understanding of the founders was that militas are operated by the states. Subsequent state and federal laws also bear that out.

(Article I, Section 8, in pertinent part: reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Article II, Section 2, in pertinent part: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the... Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Oklahoma Statues, Chapter 44, Section 22: All matters concerning or relating to the Militia, the National Guard, or other military organizations, and such other duties as may be assigned by the Governor, shall be administered by and through the Military Department.)
Your state may have a different take (but I doubt it), but clearly in Oklahoma only the State may run a militia.

We're a long way from the Colonial period when communication and transportaion was so restricted that individual communities had to rely solely on themselves.

Answer 3

I think, this day and age, that would be impossible. The supremes would risk a revolt by the people.

While I am a liberal, I also believe in the right to bare arms and also believe that it should be legal for anyone to carry a concealed weapon. In area's that do allow that in the USA, that has resulted in a sharp reduction in violent crime.

On the other side, I now live in the Peoples Republic of China as an ex pat from the USA were individual ownership of firearms is illegal. I support that here, but they made that into law a century ago. Plus, China has a society where violent crime isn't nearly as prevalent as the USA. The USA, banning guns will not work, we are a completely different kind of society. One day it may work, but right now it can't. The USA has a lot of growing up to do.

While I understand the reasoning behind having guns to prevent the government from running all over the people, nevertheless, I think of F-15's, bazooka's, and smart bombs, to me, makes that pretty much moot.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 4

maybe in the short term, long term i would not think so. i cant see this ruling affecting the bottom lines of those two companies that much because while some people in chicago will now purchase handguns i cant see it being enough to move their numbers that much. that being said, if there are many other cities in the us with a similar ban to the one chicago had and this ruling overturns the laws in those cities then this ruling could drive the stocks significantly higher, but as i am not an expert in gun laws i cannot say for sure.

Answer 5

The ruling would be unconstitutional without an amendment and as such would be grounds to use the weapons that our 2nd amendment rights allow. The second amendment is crucial to our government not getting out of control. If we have no right to bear arms, we will have no defense from a government run a muck.

Answer 6

We don't need more laws..... We DO NOT enforce the ones we have now! Just like all the immigration laws that , our law enforcement, our courts and our government ignore!
And as far as our miltary taking over if we don't give up our guns, well, Just look at what an armed populas can do, in Bagdad!!

Answer 7

Granted, the Supreme Court is a little confused about its role lately, I am optimistic that such a travesty would never occur. The Bill of Rights are not privileges granted to me by my government.... they are basic rights granted to me by my creator just for being human.

Answer 8

Me and the boys will form a not so well regulated secret militia. We ain't about to let no commies from Washington take our guns.

Answer 9

They won't. The most they might do is acknowledge that states (and the federal government) have the right to regulate firearms. This is one of those cases where they will be trying to make the narrowest possible ruling to avoid making everyone mad.

Answer 10

I doubt that will happen. However it would be ironic if after 40 years of chicken little warnings that the liberals were gonna "take our guns", it was actually done by a conservative Supreme court.

Answer 11

There are many well-regulated militias already, and I recommend to all red-blooded Americans to join them and be ready.