TargetTalk

What if in 08 the Supreme Court ruled in favor or anti-gun? What will it mean to our sport and our firearms? How soon are we going to see the impact? What can we do? Does it mean we have to turn in all our guns?

jjjjjjjj wrote:What if in 08 the Supreme Court ruled in favor or anti-gun? What will it mean to our sport and our firearms? How soon are we going to see the impact? What can we do? Does it mean we have to turn in all our guns?

All of Europe is pretty much anti-gun and yet precision shooting and hunting do go on. I think most anti-gun laws in the US will be geared toward assault type weapons. I doubt very much that Olympic style shooting has anything to worry about.

In the short term, I don't see Federal legislation soon...but state laws will differ. I would expect to see attempts at wide-ranging gun bans in CA, NJ, NY, MD,and MA. Some will get through.

In the long term...I don't know. The NRA has always fought with the Second Amendment as a shield, and losing it would be disastrous. On the other hand, it might motivate firearm owners who are not NRA members to join. If the NRA had 100% of gun owners, it would have about 80 million members...and would not be a lobby, but the dominant party in American politics.

There haven't even been arguments before the SC yet, have there?

And, the issue is whether DC can keep the gun bans that its had in place, or if the 2nd Amendment really is an individual right.

It's a no-loser for gun owners, as far as I can see. At worst, nothing changes.

Unfortunately not true. Until now, we have had the Second Amendment as a potential block to the most repressive laws. Lose this case, and it's open season on gun owners.

I'll concede that at the moment, gun control is a dead letter at the national level. 9/11 killed it, Katrina buried it. And there are about 40 states that are safe. But there are about a dozen states that are NOT safe at this time. Not to mention the potential for changes for the worse later on.

No, we need to win this one. I don't think we are likely to see a wholesale reversal of firearms laws - the best we can realistically hope for is to get broad bans on the posession of firearms declared unconstutitional. But that would be a Godsend.

Mike M. wrote:Unfortunately not true. Until now, we have had the Second Amendment as a potential block to the most repressive laws. Lose this case, and it's open season on gun owners.

I'll concede that at the moment, gun control is a dead letter at the national level. 9/11 killed it, Katrina buried it. And there are about 40 states that are safe. But there are about a dozen states that are NOT safe at this time. Not to mention the potential for changes for the worse later on.

No, we need to win this one. I don't think we are likely to see a wholesale reversal of firearms laws - the best we can realistically hope for is to get broad bans on the posession of firearms declared unconstutitional. But that would be a Godsend.

Think positive, act positive. Negative thoughts never win a match.

Scott H. wrote:And, the issue is whether DC can keep the gun bans that its had in place, or if the 2nd Amendment really is an individual right.

Actually, those are two separate issues. It's pretty certain that the Supremes will hold that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (by at least 7-2, and maybe 9-0). The real issue will be how far can a government (fed, state, city, etc) go in restricting that right. It will end up being a case-by-case basis - D.C.'s law will be struck down, and maybe Chicago's when it gets challenged, but I think most of the others (Mass., for example), will survive. In short, while the philosophical question of whether the 2nd Amend. applies to state militias or individuals will be answered, there won't be much change in the real world or in our day to day lives.

-Ted