Quoted: I didn't say they would "sort it out" I said they would overturn the AWB that everyone's talking about. The previous bans and actions do not have the scope of the proposed ban, a ban that would effectively outlaw an entire class of weapons. Weapons that have been legal to make, sell, transport, and buy for many years.
It's going to be difficult to ban these weapons when they have been accepted as normal for so long.
|
You clearly haven't been reading any court opinions or following any of this stuff for the last 70 years. The majority view at the Circuit Court of Appeals level is that Congress can pass any damn law it likes regarding firearms and it doesn't matter because you have no individual right to bear arms.
Only one circuit (the 5th Circuit) has said that there is an individual right to bear arms - and it is subject to "reasonable restrictions" which at least one judge writing a concurring opinion thought included the 1994 AWB as a reasonable restrictions. He called Emerson's ownership of a Beretta M9, Springfield M1A, M1 carbine, and a 12ga a "military style arsenal." that was "clearly not protected." This from a judge (Parker) who DID find an individual right. Not only that but the finding of an individual right was in dicta - which means that it is not binding precedent.
I have no doubt that our Supreme Court would overturn this ban as unconstitutional. |
Let me throw out just one problem for you - name a test that the Supreme Court can use to invalidate this legislation; but that doesn't invalidate any other federal firearms law. Tell me which five Justices are going to go along with that test.
The Supreme Court has absolutely zero interest in taking a 2A case because it is a lose-lose deal for them. If they say it is a collective right and can be regulated on a rational basis test, they have just ignored the 90% of the American populace who believe it is an individual right (this includes about 20% who actually support gun bans but still believe it is an individual right). Not only that; but the best legal minds out there haven't been able to come up with a justification of the collective rights argument that would sway a second-grade child. A collective rights decision is basically the Supreme Court saying "Let's get it on!" to millions of armed gun owners who share the same view as the majority of the American populace.
On the other hand, if the Second is an individual right, even one with "reasonable restrictions" then it can't be regulated on a rational basis (like Congress has been doing for the last 50 years). The Supreme Court is not going to overturn 50 years worth of federal law that the public has already accepted. Conservative justices are especially not going to do it because the whole point of a conservative is that they don't favor drastic, major change. So if the Supreme Court declares an individual right, then they also have to give lower courts a test they can use to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. They want that test to be as clear as possible so they can continue to avoid all the sticky issues raised by 2A cases.
So write me a clear test that invalidates H.R. 1022; but doesn't invalidate any other major federal firearms law. Make sure it doesn't open a can of worms somewhere else either. Finally make sure it can withstand thousands of lawyers twisting it in every way possible to get an edge for their client Ricky the corner thug; but it still reaches a favorable result when a good citizen is caught up by it.
Of course, none of this even gets into the individual biases of the current slate of Justices, several of whom plain don't like guns anyway and have no problem with gun bans. Short version - I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a Supreme Court decision to save us if this passes.