I was reading this link [url]http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/006129.html[/url] that nels provided on the 10th Circut Courts brief to the SCOTUS on the [i]Haney[/i] case.
It is a extremely week argument, with so many factual errors in citing case law that the government has no chance of winning. And GCA 68 and the machinegun provisions of the 86 FOPA would be history.
Which is why they are NOT going to hear that case. It would change too radicly from the status quo.
Instead they WILL hear [i]Emerson[/i].
And they will side for the defence.
And they will declare the 2nd to be a individual right and incorprorate it via the 14th Amendment to be binding on the states.
But herein lies the danger. It is entirely possible that even THIS conservitive court could succumb to the temptation of "ending the gun control debate once and for all" and practice a small amount of judicial activism.
And what could do is say that the right to bear arms is inalienable, or at least as close to it as your right to life and liberty are, which can be taken away only through due process during which you are protected by a presumption of innocence... and they will ALSO say that the anti-gun lobby is correct and the Militia Clause [i]is[/i] an anachronism and irrelevant. It IS possible to do that and still make a logical decision. And by doing so they would make it much more difficult for a case like [i]Haney[/i] which would repeal most Federal firearms law, to ever make it this far again.
If they choose this path, it would still render the gun ownership laws and regulations of places like New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey and DC unconstitutional. Things like NYC's permit system would be gone, so would Illinois FOID cards. But, apart from the law in question, making it a federal crime to buy a firearm while under a restraining order-which the Justice Department has never been happy about dealing with and will not miss- NO Federal laws would be touched. For the federal government the status quo will remain.
But by saying that the Millita Clause is no longer relevent (and they don't have to actually SAY anything about it, they can write a decision without ever refering to it at all-ignoring it would have the same effect as denouncing it) it would NOT extend constitutional protection to Class III and other "military style" long arms, nor would it do anything to prohibit things like import bans or the high cap mag ban being inacted in the future by Congress. It would leave us black rifle owners right where we are now, at the whim of public opinion.
I know that there are at least some votes for a strict interpretation of the Constitution in Emerson. One that would include the Milita Clause and would keep alive the chances of a case like [i]Haney[/i] someday getting a sympathetic ruling from the Supreme Court. I don't know that there are [i]five[/i] such votes.