Does anyone believe that if the Supreme Court of the United States ever ruled  unconditionally in favor of the 2nd amendment,  that the political unthinkable would happen...
That the PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS PERIOD.

Just trying to get some different view points on this subject.

my bet is that they will refuse to rule on it, if they ever have to then id expect them to play it nuetral or throw bones to both sides, confusing the issue even more, and making everyone go back to square 1.

just my worthless opinion

Your opinion may be worthless Garand1911, but then mine is as well.  I'm in agreement with you.  

I think Garand is right.

The behind the scenes reasoning would probably be financial, assume for a moment they agree philosophically.  Think of all the reimbursements/compensation  required if all the bullshit laws and the resulting confiscations were overturned.  I recall thinking about the fiasco just in CA a couple of years ago when there was some sort of lawsuit over an exemption from the CA ban, and subsequent confiscations of weapons registered by the gullible.  I think a lot of the reason for not overturning that was the cost of all the compensation for the illegally confiscated weapons.

Wouldn't be the first time a court ruled on financial (though behind the scenes) grounds.  

I think your probably right they would make some equally confusing double sided ruling and kick it back down for appellate hot-potato(e)[Dan Quayle style].

I didn't really think about the money aspect and all the reversal gun confiscation quagmire.

The other thing that bothers me is this may seem counter intuitive but here goes...

Would a more liberal court be helpful by "legislating from the bench" as it is called; rather than the most conservative "strict constructionist" court?

Could an Ultra Conservative Court actually hurt because of where the comma is and the word militia etc. etc. [marines]
Please offer more opinion as I really want to get some insight from us who are all on the same side.

My reading of history says there was only one comma.

[b]"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."[/b]

i think that they already ruled that we are able to own military arms.

The bigger issue that SCOTUS has is not about guns but about the definition of "the people". If this phrase was only used in this amendment, SCOTUS would not have the problem it does now. Once this is realized, people can understand why modern SCOTUS avoids these cases.

In the grand scheme of things the financial impact would be minimal.  There weren't all that many confiscations.  Besides the government could have sovereign immunity and not have to pay for it's "mistake" which you would have to get the court to rule that it was illegal at the time.  Kinda like reparations, getting the gummint to pay for past mistakes, doesn't hardly ever happen.

So are you saying that "the people" part is the problem because all of a sudden government wouldn't really be in charge--it would be the people and then all hell breaks loose.  Then we might even have a democracy like the Founding Fathers intended! [:O]

So by being illegal at the time oh so goes the case against the government and all is right with the world. [^]

The SCOTUS isn't afraid to hear a case abou the 2nd.

But 2 groups are afraid of what would happen if the SCOTUS did

1) VPC, MMM, etc. are afraid if the issue was pushed the Supreme Ct. WOULD find that the 2nd absolutely means what the pro-gun people say it does.

2) NRA, GOA, rtc. are afraid if the issue was pushed the Supreme Ct. WOULD find that the 2nd is not meant as an individual Right, ie collective Right, or that "militia" is being part of a trained, led, service ie NG, AR etc. and if an individual is not part of one of a set of defined groups, they have NO Right to firearms.

Other than those 2 groups no one is afraid of what would happen if the SCOTUS ruled on the 2nd.

Then again, a few days ago someone posted "waht would you do if they came for your AR, AK, etc. They had a poll that covered options from, hide and deny, to give 'em up, to blaze of glory.......... Not one person posted that if AW's became totally illegal they would call up the police, tell them they have an illegal weapon and DEMAND to be arrested for it, DEMAND a trial, where they would probably be found guilty, and appeal the conviction through the Courts to the SCOTUS.

Yeah I forgot my High School American Government lesson - your right.  Although some teachers sure tried to convince you otherwise.

That's why we have congress and electorial college etc.

Actually, they purposefully designed a governing system that includes both. Overall, they were very suspicious of centralized government and of governments where power is too consolidated. They choose to have a weak federal government with a local democratic government. Thus, a nation with more decentralized power than any other at that time.

Did it work? Depends upon the definition of "work". Power is like a gun safe in that one can never be designed to always prevent thief. As long as time is available, the gun safe can be worn down to release it's contents. Likewise, politicians will always work to consolidate power to achieve ever higher heights in their careers.

Thomas Jefferson understood this problem very well. Thus, the famous quote in his letter to William Smith... "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants".

What most people are unaware of is his prediction of the interval for refreshing the tree... "What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. [b]What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?[/b]".

Looks like we are due this century.

No, in less breadth than that. The problem I see is that redefining "the people" as meaning something else other than individual rights has consequences on other amendments and where "people" is used.

If this unique definition of "people" that is being applied to the 2nd amendment stands by a SCOTUS ruling, then a pattern is set. This pattern of apply this unique definition to other areas will effectively render our constitution useless and irrelevant.

SCOTUS would never in good conscience do this. SO, they only have two options.... stall or rule that "people" is an individual right.

This is why ETH is wrong. Any and all pro-gun court cases are good. Volume is critical here as we need to reach numbers where SCOTUS can't ignore and stall any longer. Ideally, we want all of the circuit courts to be at odds with each other. Right now, we've got the 9th and 5th.