Homey, legal question regarding II Amend..

[Jerk]

Ok, say that the SCROTUS rules on the 'collective rights' theory. In order to be some-what truthful to themselves, they'd have to recognize the right of state militias under this argument and not the Federal Gov't. It would be just plain silly to say that the Government is guaranteeing itself the right to own guns. So If they do rule in favor of collectivism in the form of state militias, what keeps a Red State government from saying, "Ok then, every non-felon over the age of 18 who is a citizen of our state is now a member of the state militia."

There are many ways to say "f**k you" but I think this would be my favorite.

Thanks

[olevetonahill]

I like . :D

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't know that that would meet the definition of a "well-regulated" militia.

Moot question, though. There's no way that the way the court is going to be made up at the time of the decision that they're going to opine that the second isn't an individual right.

[Okla-homey]

I think it will almost definitely be ruled an individual right. If it were ruled a collective right, that would be inconsistent with the other rights in the BOR.

Now, that said, the crux of the matter is going to be what standard is to be applied by courts when a federal, state or local law infringing on that individual right is passed.

As you know, virtually all our other individual rights have some limits (e.g. free speech - but can't yell fire in a crowded theater, freedom of religion - but no human sacrifice is allowed, etc.)

Thus, if the "right to keep and bear" is an individual right, as I beleive it is, how far can gov't go to limit that right? I doubt the Court will go for the "strict scrutiny standard" (where state has to show the law is narrowly tailored, cannot be achieved by less intrusive means and has a compelling government purpose). This is the standard applied to judicial review of laws that discriminate based on race, religion, etc. In fact, laws reviewed under the strict-scrutiny standard hardly ever survive judicial review.

OTOH, if they apply "rational basis" review, where the state merely relates the law to some rational government purpose, the DC gun ban would probably be upheld. In fact, laws reviewed under the "rational basis" standard are hardly ever overturned.

It's gonna be interesting for sure. But remember, the real issue is not the individual vs. collective right question. I think we win that one easy. The biggie is what standard the Court announces for judicial review of laws that infringe on that right to keep and bear.

[Jerk]

Interesting. So legally converting my AR-15's into M16's is not likely going to happen.

On a related note, just imagine the political fall-out from a collective rights ruling.

[Vaevictis]

So If they do rule in favor of collectivism in the form of state militias, what keeps a Red State government from saying, "Ok then, every non-felon over the age of 18 who is a citizen of our state is now a member of the state militia."

It was always my understanding that this was the case in most of the older states anyway. Even if it's not, this is a longstanding tradition under the common law that preceded the Constitution -- albiet abridged by King Henry before the revolution -- so I think it would have to be recognized.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I don't think they'll rule on state militia issue.

DC is under federal jurisdiction - not in any state.

[Okla-homey]

I don't think they'll rule on state militia issue.

DC is under federal jurisdiction - not in any state.

Not so fast mon frer. DC indeed isn't a state, but they have an Air Force and an Army nevertheless. Difference is, the Prez in their commander, not the governor like with the states.

http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/arng-dc.htm

[Okla-homey]

see below


Interesting. So legally converting my AR-15's into M16's is not likely going to happen.

No. Not likely.

On a related note, just imagine the political fall-out from a collective rights ruling.

For starters, it would prolly put the NRA out of business. Their raison d-etre has always been its an individual right. Don't get me wrong, I'm a member and all, but such a ruling would be devastating to our cause.

OTOH, if they rule individual right, but infringement related to some rational gubmint purpose is okay, IMHO, we're pretty much right back where we are now.

[Jerk]

see below
I doubt a collective rights ruling would put the NRA out of business at all. Far from it, I think there would be a backlash that will surprise many people.

However, an individual rights ruling that states 'guns can't be banned' (generally speaking) would be far more harmful to the NRA. How are they going to raise money and recruit new members if there is little or no threat of gun bans?

The NRA didn't want this suit. They tried to derail it long ago.

[Okla-homey]

But here's the thing bro. I favor reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. I know, the "slippery slope" dealio and all, but look, some people shouldn't even be able to buy a Buck knife IMHO.

If I were Emperor: if you are a convicted felon, a seckshual offender, or have been adjudged mentally unsound -- no guns for you!

OTOH, if you are none of those things, you should be able to buy them on-line if you want and have them delivered to your door. Further, if you have a CCP, you should be able to carry just about anywhere you want. Even a school.

[Frozen Sooner]

Please not in federally-insured financial institutions. WE don't want them in there.

[Jerk]

Please not in federally-insured financial institutions. WE don't want them in there.

Can you guarantee my safety and take full responsibility for my well-being if I am in your institution while it is being robbed?

[Curly Bill]

Can you guarantee my safety and take full responsibility for my well-being if I am in your institution while it is being robbed?

The exact thought I always have when I'm prohibited from carrying my weapon into certain places.

Kind of the dealio at schools these days. We won't let anyone carry weapons to school, and I'm not for the great majority of students doing it certainly, but not letting anyone including principals and teachers do it either, and then we don't protect them. See Virgina Tech or Columbine as an example.

[1stTimeCaller]

You guys know that I'm slow so work with me here. What would/could happen if it was found to be a collective right?

[Frozen Sooner]

Can you guarantee my safety and take full responsibility for my well-being if I am in your institution while it is being robbed?

Nope. Can you guarantee that if you pull your weapon the robber's not going to vaporize one of my tellers?

Edit: Trust me, we're trained to deal with robbers. Everything we do is aimed at getting them the hell out of there with nobody getting hurt. Our money is insured. They GET caught-the conviction rate for bank robbers up here is WELL over 90%. I'd prefer if nobody did anything to freak out the guy who's got a gun pulled on my employee.

[Jerk]

You guys know that I'm slow so work with me here. What would/could happen if it was found to be a collective right?

Immediately, nothing. Nothing at all. Congress would still have to pass laws to further restrict or ban firearms. But with 2008 coming, and the possibility that the Democrats will control both Congress and the White House, then nothing would stop them from enacting bans, confiscations, severe restrictions, etc. I don't know if they would do that or not. But if they did, nothing could stop it.

[Jerk]

Nope. Can you guarantee that if you pull your weapon the robber's not going to vaporize one of my tellers?


Right. I used to work for BoK. I understand the whole 'give em what they want (plus the die pack:)) policy. And I agree. Let the feds chase their as.s.

However, if they start executing people, or if a shoot-out gets started, I don't want to sit there and die like a farm animal at a slaughter house. Granted, that situation would be rare, but you don't seem to believe that CCW permit holders have very much common sense. I think if you look at statistics, you'll find otherwise.