Benthic

They'd have to get one more liberal justice, as you say, but then the matter would also have to be brought before the court again. Given that, in the Heller case, SCOTUS upheld the ruling of the lower court, and now the lower courts have the SCOTUS Heller ruling to point at, that seems unlikely.

Brian

__________________
Do not buy what you do not want just because it is cheap.
---Thomas Jefferson

SammyIamToday

California is one of the few exceptions in this country. Most of the states declare it an individual right withint heir own Constitutions. 2/3rds of the states would not ratify an amendment removing the 2nd Amendment.

Really a bit of a stretch imo the way things are going. They'd have to get another case. The most likely replacements right now are from the group of 4 that voted no. Etc.

__________________
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

goawayfarm

Suits are already being filed! The outcome of these will be appealed & appealed by the loosing side until...............were BACK AT SCOTUS. Do you think these localities like DC & Chicago are just going to roll over & give up?

DC's mayor has already said he's going to limit semi-autos......& you can bet he just isn't going to let gun shops just start opening in DC.

This is just round 2 in a new fight!....& all that's needed for our side to loose is ONE JUSTICE!

__________________
Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.

"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

SammyIamToday

As I pointed out, in the near future the age situation of Justices is pretty well in our favor. And I'm not aware of any SCOTUS cases that were overturned like that a few years later. They'd be doing away with pretty much the whole precedent of the court.

If anything, I'm anxious to see the new Gura/NRA/SAF suits owning faces.

And if they suddenly did just overturn it over political reasons, it's the same as admitting it's all about people control instead of anything else. Most of America supports it as an individual right. Which should be enough of a slap in the face for gun owners to finally say, WHAT? and for things to get fixed.

__________________
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

Sheldon J

N the 4 dissenting votes obviously voted opinion and not law, nothing new in this announcement.

__________________
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

QKShooter

The original Pennsylvania Constitution predates the Second Amendment so that anyone that ever had any doubt as to the exact intent of the Second Amendment (which was not adopted until December of 1791) concerning the right of an individual citizen to keep and bear arms needs only to read the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania Declaration Of Rights of the people.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

The original 1776 PA Constitution

> XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;
and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up;
And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Later changed to:

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.

> The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

And then also keep in mind that EIGHT of the original Signers Of The Constitution were from Pennsylvania.

__________________

Support Our Troops

How Very Fortunate You Are To Have Two Arms To Put Into A Ward 57 T-Shirt.
DC MEMBERS ~ PLEASE BUY A WARD 57 SHIRT. Click Here.

falcon1

I too think it is unlikely that DC v. Heller would be immediately overturned. There is, however, a path it could quickly be done. If one of the majority justices were to leave the court, and if the elections in November were to go a certain way, and if certain justices get nominated and confirmed, and if the liberal Ninth Circuit were to stay true to form on the almost certain appeal of whatever decisions are made regarding San Francisco's handgun ban, another case could get to the Supreme Court quickly.

That's a lot of ifs, but it is possible.

__________________
If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Candidus (in the Boston Gazette, 20 January 1772)

Tom357

In whose favor? If the Democrats carry the race, we will be faced with a Democrat President, Senate and House. With likely three Supreme Court appointments to be made in the not-so-distant future, a Democrat-dominated Presidency and Congress is not likely to select conservative nominees, but activist liberal judges. The result could easily be a 5-4 court dominated by "living document" believers.

__________________
- Tom
You have the power to donate life.

SelfDefense

The Court is in our favor (conservative view of the originalist intent of the Constitution) because the three justices likely to expire or retire are Stevens, who is 88, Ginsburg, whose brain expired years ago, and Souter, a Supreme disappointment.

Three liberal justices might be replaced and even if one turns out to be a justice in the mold of Alito, Thomas, Rberts and Scalia, the Court will have the opportunity to remove itself from the social political arena and more aligned with is Constitutional function. If all three replacements are liberals then 'we the people' will be no worse off.

Even if the unthinkable (and unlikely) occurs and Obama is sworn in next January, it is often the case that justices do not opine as the political factions would think based on their record. Souter is a perfect example. He was supposed to be an originalist justice. It turns out he is a far left liberal.