Supreme Court Second Amendment Case Could Overrule Heller Decision in 2017

[unknown]

Supreme Court Second Amendment Case Could Overrule Heller Decision in 2017

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/20/supreme-court-second-amendment-case-overrule-heller-2017/

Ken Klukowski
20 Sep 2016

WASHINGTON—For the first time in U.S. history, a federal appeals court on Friday struck down a federal gun-control law for violating the Second Amendment, meaning that next year the Supreme Court will hear a case that includes the opportunity to abolish citizens’ right to bear arms by overruling the Court’s famous Heller precedent.

{.. snip ..}

[unknown]

In 2008, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller—one of the most famous decisions ever written by Justice Antonin Scalia—held that the Second Amendment is an individual right,

..

The Second Amendment has survived twice at the Supreme Court over the past decade, both by only 5-4 votes.

One of the ways that the justices could rule in favor of the federal government would be to overrule Heller, and hold that the Second Amendment does not apply at all to private citizens.

[unknown]

Well, then...

My worst fears in this election will coming up sooner that I had anticipated.

If Hillary wins
then the fun really begins!!

With her supreme court nominees
the feds will come and they will seize.

It will be jail for some
and others, death for freedom.

[INVAR]

That fear shiite don't fly.

It doesn't matter which party or which Statist with an 'R' after their name is given power - the legislature, the courts and the Throne have all taken the nation off the cliff to the Left.

So….

It is irrelevant what the court *rules* in regards to our rights and liberties.

They already rendered themselves illegitimate and have no moral or legal authority by which they are to be obeyed.  All they have are the guns their agents will put to our heads.

And if you are comfortable living under that kind of tyranny - enjoy the chains you already wear.

[Fishrrman]

Just a thought as I read the replies.
Don't mean nuthin'.... but...

...If the Supreme Court ever did overturn Heller and rule that there is no right to private ownership of guns under the Second Amendment, this might be the spark that finally sets off a Convention of the States to re-write the Second to specifically establish such rights...

[unknown]

The following seemed relevant...

Harry Reid, Democrats Use Terrorist Knife and Bomb Attacks To Push… Gun Control?

http://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2016/09/20/harry-reid-democrats-urge-for-gun-control/

September 20, 2016
Beth Baumann

Here we go again!

The Democrats are using the terrorist attacks that took place this past weekend as their justification for gun control legislation.

{.. snip ..}

[unknown]

With her supreme court nominees, she won't have to do any more back door, constitutionally illegal back door gun control. As the article in this original post, she will just make them illegal.


Hillary in 1993: Let's Double the Gun Tax

http://www.atr.org/hillary-1993-lets-double-gun-tax

John Kartch
September 20th, 2016

..

“Hillary and the Left are now seeking to tax the Second Amendment out of existence,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Over the many years, Hillary has endorsed every available effort to limit gun ownership by American citizens through taxes, regulations, and executive orders. One senses a pattern."

[unknown]

Scary Thoughts or Scary Realities?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/scary_thoughts_or_scary_realities.html
September 21, 2016
Victor Sharpe and Robert Vincent

The Second Amendment would be gutted, likely reinterpreted protecting only the right to bear arms solely within the context of belonging to a "well-regulated militia" (i.e., the National Guard or similar organizations), a position long favored by the progressive left.

 

[INVAR]

You can stop spamming us with this stupid scare tactic.

It doesn't matter which NY Liberal Democrat is awarded the throne in the oval office.  The GOP will just as readily confirm whomever Hildabeast nominates just as readily and speedily as any liberal/statist moron Trump nominates.  The Oligarchy is in this for keeps.

We know that.

Our Rights are not within the authority of courts of men to abolish, diminish or tamper with.  They can 'rule' whatever they like, abolish free speech, religion, bearing arms or whatever - all in the name of the public good.

You would be fools to comply with tyrants.

Trump is not going to stop the tyrannical Leftward bent of SCOTUS anymore than Hillary will.  It takes a Senate confirmation to seat someone on the court - and the Leftists are NOT going to permit an Originalist like Scalia back on the court - so stop with the fear-mongering bullpuckey.

So we do not care which NY Liberal Democrat is crowned in January.  It is irrelevant in terms of Constitutional liberty and limited government, because those things have been repudiated by both parties, both nominees and the bulk of the populace whom demands a king and dear leader to give them stuff while punishing those whom they have been led to hate.

[unknown]

You can stop spamming us with this stupid scare tactic.

It doesn't matter which NY Liberal Democrat is awarded the throne in the oval office.  The GOP will just as readily confirm whomever Hildabeast nominates just as readily and speedily as any liberal/statist moron Trump nominates.  The Oligarchy is in this for keeps.

We know that.

Our Rights are not within the authority of courts of men to abolish, diminish or tamper with.  They can 'rule' whatever they like, abolish free speech, religion, bearing arms or whatever - all in the name of the public good.

You would be fools to comply with tyrants.

Trump is not going to stop the tyrannical Leftward bent of SCOTUS anymore than Hillary will.  It takes a Senate confirmation to seat someone on the court - and the Leftists are NOT going to permit an Originalist like Scalia back on the court - so stop with the fear-mongering bullpuckey.

So we do not care which NY Liberal Democrat is crowned in January.  It is irrelevant in terms of Constitutional liberty and limited government, because those things have been repudiated by both parties, both nominees and the bulk of the populace whom demands a king and dear leader to give them stuff while punishing those whom they have been led to hate.

You are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is not fact.

[Doug Loss]

Frankly, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says about the 2nd Amendment.  I, and the vast majority of my compatriots, will not comply with any abridgement of my right to keep and bear arms.  The Supreme Court can stick it where the sun don't shine if they try to stop us.

[INVAR]

You are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is not fact.

No wrong.  The FACT IS, fear mongering over who Hildabeast might nominate to SCOTUS is irrelevant, same as whoever Trump nominates.

THE FACT IS, the Senate MUST confirm a nominee (unless they surrender that duty too) and no Democrat - even if Trump is seated on the throne is going to approve any of his picks unless they are rabid Leftists.  So your fear-mongering attempt to scare people into voting for Trump over SCOTUS nominations is irrelevant.  The end-result will still be the same.

SECOND FACT: SCOTUS and most of the Federal Beast has delegitimized itself, and has no moral or legitimate authority that a free and moral people have to give them over their gross violations of the rule of law in order to push the Obama agenda.  All the Beast has is guns their agents will put to our heads to force compliance with unlawful, immoral and unGodly decrees made by the Executive or wanted by the Executive.   The very definition of tyranny.

THIRD FACT IS - it doesn't matter what SCOTUS rules. If it infringes upon our God-given and natural rights - it has no authority whatsoever, and we have an obligation to refuse to comply and resist when they attempt to enforce it.

FOURTH FACT - you choose to give the lawless authority by compliance of all the above when they rule over things they have no jurisdiction.

In short, the vain and feeble attempt to scare people into voting for a lifelong NY Liberal Democrat running as a Republican over who Hillary might nominate and get approved is bogus, stupid and insulting.

[geronl]

You are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is not fact.

Trump supported the AWB and said ideally nobody would have a gun. he also supported "No Fly, No Buy" which would essentially be the end of the second amendment because there is no due process about having your name put on a secret list.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It is irrelevant what the court *rules* in regards to our rights and liberties.

No it isn't.  A court ruling overturning Heller would give federal and state governments the legal authority to do all sorts of things they cannot do now, from taxing ammunition out of existence to sweeping the bank accounts of gun owners who refuse to turn in weapons. 

To say that is "irrelevant" is letting your ideological blinders distort the plain meaning of words.  Whether or not you believe the exercise of such power to be "legitimate" is not the only sense in which actions like that can be relevant to the average person.  Lots of morally "illegitimate" things had terrible consequences to innocent people.

[driftdiver]

THIRD FACT IS - it doesn't matter what SCOTUS rules. If it infringes upon our God-given and natural rights - it has no authority whatsoever, and we have an obligation to refuse to comply and resist when they attempt to enforce it.

Ask the millions of babies murdered since Roe v Wade if SCOTUS rulings matter.    If you don't have lots of money for lawyers you don't have the ability to exercise those rights unless the govt lets you.   Those days are long gone.

[unknown]

No wrong.  The FACT IS, fear mongering over who Hildabeast might nominate to SCOTUS is irrelevant, same as whoever Trump nominates.

..

No, this is where you are wrong, "who Hildabeast might nominate to SCOTUS is irrelevant"

Who Hillary might nominate to the SCOTUS is HUGELY relevant to this election!!

And therefore, it is your opinion that the SCOTUS nominees for either Trump or Hillary is fear-mongering.

[andy58-in-nh]

Heller is now established precedent. The Supreme Court does not easily overturn precedent, especially when a case is exactly on point.  They will decline to hear this one, as they do the vast majority of Federal cases, because the District Court followed existing case law.   

If the SC becomes inclined to begin reversing recent precedents on specious political grounds, then it will be up to Congress to stop them, just as it is Congress' duty to rein in excesses of the Executive branch.

If Congress refuses to do so, then it is up to the People to remake Congress via the ballot box, and let's pray it ends there.     

[driftdiver]

If Congress refuses to do so, then it is up to the People to remake Congress via the ballot box, and let's pray it ends there.   

I don't see that happening in a good way considering all of the money people like Soros are pumping in to destabilize this country.

[INVAR]

No, this is where you are wrong, "who Hildabeast might nominate to SCOTUS is irrelevant"

Who Hillary might nominate to the SCOTUS is HUGELY relevant to this election!!

And therefore, it is your opinion that the SCOTUS nominees for either Trump or Hillary is fear-mongering.

Listen GENIUS - it doesn't matter whom they NOMINATE - the Senate has to CONFIRM THEM by majority vote - and I daresay, given the McConnell betrayals of the last 4 years, get used to saying "Majority Leader Chuck Schumer" .

Even if your prince is seated -  the Senate has to confirm them - and given the razor thin margins that currently exist - no Originalist will ever be confirmed by the Senate.

So your insistence that whomever Hillary nominates is relevant, is spurious and stupid given there are TWO lifelong NY Liberal Democrats running for the Presidency from the two major parties.

[unknown]

Listen GENIUS  ...

Thank you!

[libertybele]

Just a thought as I read the replies.
Don't mean nuthin'.... but...

...If the Supreme Court ever did overturn Heller and rule that there is no right to private ownership of guns under the Second Amendment, this might be the spark that finally sets off a Convention of the States to re-write the Second to specifically establish such rights...
[/quote

A Convention of the States should already be taking place in order to stave off what may come.  IMHO convening after the fact is going to be futile. It is really frightening especially with Scalia deceased (I still have my doubts).

[Fishrrman]

andy wrote:
"If the SC becomes inclined to begin reversing recent precedents on specious political grounds, then it will be up to Congress to stop them, just as it is Congress' duty to rein in excesses of the Executive branch.
If Congress refuses to do so, then it is up to the People to remake Congress via the ballot box, and let's pray it ends there."

It won't.
And you know it.
So... why didn't you say as much?

[montanajoe]

It's unlikely a Roberts Court will overturn Heller or Roe for that matter. I've made this point before but Robert's has a Conservative Judicial philosophy he is not a political ideologue as many on the right expect him to be. His philosophy is that it is up to the Congress to act on matters such as this. I seriously doubt the SC would even take the case and if they did they did, decision would be narrow unlikely to disturb the holding in Heller.

[andy58-in-nh]

andy wrote:
"If the SC becomes inclined to begin reversing recent precedents on specious political grounds, then it will be up to Congress to stop them, just as it is Congress' duty to rein in excesses of the Executive branch.
If Congress refuses to do so, then it is up to the People to remake Congress via the ballot box, and let's pray it ends there."

It won't.
And you know it.
So... why didn't you say as much?

Because I'm an optimist.

It is still possible that America will come back to her senses, especially once we see what happens when the rule of law gives way, as it is presently beginning to do. 

And also, because I'm a father.

I don't want for my family what we both fear is coming. There is still time left to change course and return to the virtues that made America great.  No single person can do that. But a national movement based not on hatred but on love, not on anger but on reverence, not on fear but instead on courage.... I can still dream, can't I?

[unknown]

Heller is now established precedent. The Supreme Court does not easily overturn precedent, especially when a case is exactly on point.  They will decline to hear this one, as they do the vast majority of Federal cases, because the District Court followed existing case law.   

If the SC becomes inclined to begin reversing recent precedents on specious political grounds, then it will be up to Congress to stop them, just as it is Congress' duty to rein in excesses of the Executive branch.

If Congress refuses to do so, then it is up to the People to remake Congress via the ballot box, and let's pray it ends there.   

" The Supreme Court does not easily overturn precedent.."

Yes, that does seem to be the case.

"..in 229 years, the court has only overruled one of its constitutional decisions 95 times."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/constitution-check-might-supreme-court-overrule-own-gun-111205509.html

But with a full on activist court, who knows what they would do.