Glenn E. Meyer Mindmelds With Glenn Reynolds on SCOTUS and 2A

[Bartholomew Roberts]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...dom/306920002/

I know Glenn is skeptical of the utility of the Heller decision in advancing the Second Amendment much, so when I saw a similar theme coming from Glenn Reynolds, a Second Amendment scholar of some note, I thought he would appreciate the similarity.

The short summary is if you are waiting for SCOTUS to expand your 2A rights, you probably should be prepared to wait a lifetime or so. On the bright side, the article also notes the steady progress made in the legislative arena since the dark days of 1994.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

The short summary is if you are waiting for SCOTUS to expand your 2A rights, you probably should be prepared to wait a lifetime or so.

So, in other words, don't expect the U.S. Supreme Court to do their job and you'll have to rely on politicians to strike down their own unconstitutional laws...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thanks! It's a good read.

Lots of scholarship on Heller not being the silver bullet for gun rights:

http://journals.openedition.org/ejas/11874

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/th...erturn-heller/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/th...ond-amendment/

In sum, the Second Amendment vision pervading federal courts today allows banning any weapon, regardless of its function or popularity, if doing so makes people feel better; the prohibition on bearing arms by anyone unless the local police think it’s a good idea, and in just about any location subject to description by the English language; levying taxes and fees on firearms in any amount, if the money collected is put to a wholesome purpose; and the “heightened scrutiny” of any law implicating “fundamental” Second Amendment rights by deferring to the legislature’s view of what’s constitutional. If the gun prohibitionists get their way, add to this list the final farce of a ban on the acquisition and manufacture of the arms whose possession might be protected.

Perhaps Justice Scalia opposed all this, not just philosophically but enough to do something about it; he couldn’t get four of his “conservative” colleagues along since at least 2010. Another deferential judicial minimalist unenthusiastic about civil rights claims won’t improve matters. At least two more Justices who can overcome any personal political discomfort, and acknowledge both the Second Amendment and their role in enforcing fundamental rights, are required to guarantee the bare minimum of a recognizable right to arms. Unfortunately, given the major party nominees this election, the prospect of seeing even one such Justice confirmed in the next four years could not be closer to zero.

I'm not sanguine about legislation either as the current set of supposedly gun positive legislators take no action. The HPA was ditched so quickly as to assure me that they didn't want to go near it.

As some of the articles postulate, the classic conservative is also one who believes that challenges to the power of the state (as an armed populace would empower) should not be.

Folks will fall for the bait and switch from the right and the argument the other guys are worse. It is a well known principle in politics used by all parties that you don't want to resolve your key hot bottom issues as then no one will care about you or contribute.