He loaded a lot on the plate, so I'm going to spread this out over a couple posts this week, and do everything in bite-sized chunks.
I have gone to Law school and I have worked in a top law firm (as an intern) and everywhere I turn the people with the experience in the trenches that I respect tell me that the second amendment is NEVER the argument.Unless things radically change, I'd say this assessment of the current state of things is inarguable.
I continually talk to experienced, smart, creative attorneys that I respect who tell me there is no second amendment. Yesterday I had a long talk with the partner I work for and he told me to "forget the second amendment, it was poorly written, it's been completely de-balled. U.S. gun laws are entirely statute driven and it has been increasingly thus since "U.S. v Miller" in 1938. He said with the exception of "U.S. v Lopez" there are no meaningful constitutional arguments for inalienable gun rights. The courts have routinely upheld restrictions on possession and ownership particularly local ordinances.
I should throw in that these are seriously constitution believing, gun owning, gun in the top desk drawer attorneys with years of experience, not the bRADY BUNCH.
I've been saying for some time that those in power will not allow that balance to significantly change unless forced to. However, it is also my opinion that there will be a "legal resolution" from the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment, and sooner rather than later, and that individual rights will be acknowledged. Perhaps Parker will be that case.
Did I just contradict myself? I don't think so, because I don't think such a ruling will ultimately prove useful at repealing the most offensive of existing gun laws. I believe most of those will be upheld as "reasonable restrictions" where there is a "compelling state interest."
Why do I think SCOTUS will hear and decide on a case? I believe the tension between the Fifth (Emerson) and Ninth (Hickman and Silveira) Circuits can't be allowed to perpetually stand. It's in the interests of the federal government to have one interpretation of the Constitution--"one Ring to rule them all..."
So far, the "High Court" has managed to duck the issue. Some in the "pro-gun camp" say this is a good thing, because the court was not properly stacked to rule for an individual right. This was a significant reason they opposed--and tried to derail--Silveira, citing how it could create "bad precedent." Many of these critics conveniently forgot to mention how the precedent they brought about in Hickman solidified the state of California's legal position that there is no individual right.
That SCOTUS refused to hear the case was not really a surprise. Their dilemma: They couldn't rule that 2A is an unalienable right, applicable to the states as well as the national government, that shall not be infringed, because that would erode the monopoly of power--and no "authority" gives that up unless forced to. And they dared not rule that there is no individual right, because that would provoke widespread defiance and disobedience that could well get out of hand.
The time--and the cases--were not "right" to serve the purposes and maintain the balance.
That's where John Ashcroft showed the way, albeit in an often overlooked footnote...
More later.
