"They have to incorporate"
What do you mean?
This is a discussion on Variations on a Theme: The Heller Case in the USSC within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/ The Heller case that's going before the USSC could change the dynamic of the handling of the 2nd Amendment. If they rule against broadly, ...
http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/ The Heller case that's going before the USSC could change the dynamic of the handling of the 2nd Amendment. If they rule against broadly, they could hold it as a "collective right" which will launch the gun control whackos into a frenzy of federal and state level legislation.
If they rule for (again broadly) then it overturns over 20,000 state laws.... BUT ..... this is a biggie: They have to incorporate. Right. If they do rule in favor and DO incorporate, the gun control groups might as well disband.
They could of course rule in the narrow sense and simply say that the DC gun law is unconstitutional and leave the rest of it out. But I think that would only delay a definitive ruling on the issue since a flurry of cases on point would simply flood the system until a ruling is reached.
I've seen some very interesting law journal articles suddenly looking in depth at the Second Amendment. They're shocked ... SHOCKED to state that the 2nd might actually mean exactly what the NRA has been saying all these years! I know that at least 38 states have sent amicus briefs in support. A few of the left states have done the same on the other side. There are more than a few gun right groups organizing efforts to cull examples of lawful use of force incidents by citizens against "evil-doers" nationwide which will also be presented to the court as evidence. The LOTT studies showed that there are over 2 million defensive uses of firearms each year. The vast majority don't make the police blotters or "breaking news" because no shots are fired. Display is enough to drive off the attacker. That's been the case with me more than once in my life.
Think of the impact. If the 2nd Amendment refers to a citizen militia bearing their own arms for defense of country AND self and a militia is a form of INFANTRY then the real question is what type of arms MUST such a militia be comprised of? Miller in 1939 (not exactly because the moving party died but this is the gist) ruled that a sawed off shotgun wasn't suitable for a militia. But how about an AR-15? How about an M-4 (select fire) or a belt fed machine gun? Mortars? Tanks? Artillery?
I got into such an argument on Free Republic (http://www.freerepublic.com) about this issue. I maintained that the right would cover any and all firearms that could be handled and carried by a lone infantryman and had fairly pinpoint precision. That would cover a lot of weapons. All the way past the current Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) of today's infantry past the M60 machine gun that my guys carried. They were capable of accurate fire out to about 300 meters. Beyond that say out to about 800 meters they gave a circular "beaten zone" that was perhaps 5 meters in diameter. Thus I ruled that vehicle based weapons platforms such as motorized artillery or mortars or TANKS would be out of bounds. That was what I thought until.....
Somebody brought up that part of the Constitution that regards the issuing of Letters of Marque, basically legalizing the creation of private navies or armies that would extend the reach of the US government via the private sector. That was the basis for the Privateers from the era of Sir Francis Drake and I'll bet it's the basis by which companies like BLACKWATER exist currently. Imagine Bill Gates with his own private aircraft carrier? Naaaaw there are limits even to HIS access to capital. Still, it's an interesting premise to explore.
I think we are in for one heckuva ride! This is the most conservative Court we've had in decades. I think we've got a better than average chance at victory but I don't know what limits might be placed upon a "win" that might restrict the right even more than we have now.
"They have to incorporate"
What do you mean?
But it only really applied to the feds, even though the 13th was certainly all encompassing. So states passed the various laws that kept the blacks down: Jim Crow laws banned former slaves from owning guns. Poll taxes and literacy tests prevented them from voting.... For a HUNDRED YEARS. Then the Warren (IIRC) Court dramatically expanded the meaning of the 14th to extend down to the states thru incorporation.
Still not all of the Bill of Rights got "incorporated." The 2nd, 3rd & 7th (I think) didn't. That's why the 10th (States rights) is so powerful. That's how DC and Morton Grove can BAN guns. See?
If this case rules the 2nd an INDIVIDUAL right and incorporates it with the other biggies (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th) then almost instantly all the gun laws in the nation become irrelevant. The only guidelines or restrictions would be those the court specifically lists in the majority opinion.
One possible consequence of the most favorable, incorporated ruling could be the removal of restrictions on new Class III weapons. That would be great for those of us who aren't currently able to pay $25K for full auto. It would be disastrous for those who have sunk lots of money into them as an investment. There's some mixed emotions amongst that crowd, I'll bet.
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters