Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by mawguy, Feb 17, 2016.

  1. mawguy

    mawguy Sheep Dog Member

    Certainly the loss of Justice Scalia and the political battle that is coming creates a host of constitutional and legal questions.

    Let's say that the worst happens and the balance of the court shifts radically left. Heller is struck down and the "right to keep and bear arms" is no longer extended to private citizens.

    What happens next? Confiscation? What happens if there is civil disobedience? Who exactly would enforce a ban of private ownership of guns?

    I am thinking that in some parts of this country that the ammunition would be returned by live fire before the gun itself was returned. This would be a very disturbing development.

    Are there legal opinions on this subject?
  2. I hate to be a pessimist, but I think we all know that at some point in time the right to keep, and bear arms will be history. It only takes changing the high courts. I expected it to happen in about 50 years keeping a 2A friendly court, now it will be much sooner.

    Hillary has already pointed to commonwealth gun control. For most people that means no handguns, no semi auto rifles, and no personal carry. We only have to look to the commonwealth countries to see our future.

    And it will not be just the common citizen. Even the commonwealth nations that allow police to carry, they only can carry on duty. They must lock up their handgun, and go home unarmed after shift ends.

    Once federal government has disarmed the public, they will see no need for police to be armed. Only the military and elite special police will be armed.

    While many countries seem to do fine with no RKBA they do not have our current government with a lust for power. Even some of our own allies have been spied on by our government. Our whole system has become corrupt, and needs fixing, but it is not likely to happen. As a whole we usually bend over, and probably will come time for confiscation.

  3. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    Well, THAT ain't true.:rolleyes:

    The difference is, most other countries have a more limited amount of per capita wealth and power to take; and their governments are already at maximum capacity of taking stuff.

    Once you have the populace under control, you don't have to beat them up to steal their money, you just make it an automatic deduction, and use the media to keep feeding them the dogma that it's for the good of the country, and it's selfish and brutish to think otherwise.

    People will fall in line, because that's how they've been taught to act. The few that don't cooperate get tossed in jail for things like tax evasion, or causing civil unrest, and the rest follow the path of least resistance so they can appear "civilized".

    And the government is then free to do what they want.:cool:
  4. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    I fully expect what mawguy said, if they "rush the process"...

    They get the guns, hot and dirty end first! :eek:
    The plan is more like what WW says, slow and steady. I think
    some of them are getting in a hurry, would rather grab now.
    Recent attempts to erode 2A rights have simply hardened the
    resolve of the current populace, and they have stocked up! ;)
  5. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    That's because they want to have the power themselves, not let the next generation have it.;)
  6. The legal option is for a state to provide by law for the arming of it's militiamen with the militiamen providing their own arms. It's that 'well regulated' part of the 2nd.

    The Supreme Court has even directly ruled in the 1970's that no court(including the Supreme Court) has any jurisdiction over such a law. So no court can do anything about such a law. The case was Gilligan v. Morgan.

    Also, several times the Supreme Court and other courts have said that a state is 100% free to arm it's militiamen as that state sees fit. The only thing a state can't do is stop the feds from also providing for additional arming of the state militias/militiamen. [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]

    Anyone who wants to end gun control should be pushing for such a law. Doing anything else is just urinating into the wind.

    Here is a bit about what America's foremost lawyer on militia law recently wrote:


    TNTRAILERTRASH Supporting Member

    Everything will be fine when the neo-con neo-nazi Cruz gets elected. Now you can wonder why I made that statement. :stir:
  8. I'm fine with Cruz, he is better than the democrat alternatives, but then a slug is better choice than them.