General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Roe can be overturned, so can Heller. A message for MAGAts...
Heller was the SCOTUS decision that established an individual right to own a gun.
From Wikipedia:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.
Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. District of Columbia v Heller was decided in 2008, much more recent & thus, according to Alito's reasoning anyway, not "deeply rooted in this nation's history."
This is just a point I've made to right-wing gun humpers who are cheering the impending fall of Roe, & it tends to stop them in their tracks, so I figured I'd share it.
Also, most MAGAts don't believe the GOP is trying to destroy American democracy, so this next point isn't always useful, but there are situations where you can make the point that if the Radical Right (which is what I call them now) succeed in eliminating true democracy & suppressing votes to the point that they're basically installing themselves as rulers, do you really think they will tolerate an armed public?
Irish_Dem
(47,014 posts)Need to be in time out.
Torchlight
(3,331 posts)Taking the long game view, it was a brilliant strategy and appears to finally be paying big dividends on a grand scale. I've often toyed with the idea of playing out that same long game and applying it to Heller.
The same was implied as a means of legislative change by Dr. Willie Parker who wrote Life's Work, and in Killing the Black Body by Dorothy Roberts
fierywoman
(7,683 posts)maxsolomon
(33,327 posts)Thomas: 73
Alito: 71
Roberts: 67
Sotomayor: 67
Kagan: 62
Kavanaugh: 57
Gorsuch: 54
Jackson: 51
Barrett: 50
Decades to turn the court around in a way that would make that remotely feasible. Dems would need to make the next 4 appointments, probably.
Trump's Triumvirate could easily be there 30 more years.
CaptainTruth
(6,589 posts)Which is true, it CAN happen if SCOTUS decides that stare decisis no longer matters, & that becomes the norm.
I'm also not say it WILL happen, I'm saying it COULD happen, which is the key point to consider if stare decisis becomes and outdated, perhaps irrelevant, concept.
maxsolomon
(33,327 posts)But you're correct: anything COULD happen.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)
on semi-autos, if one were passed and affirmed by the court. They would reason if blue states can ignore federal drug laws and legalize weed for them, then they can do it with guns. Their local cops wont enforce it either or prosecutors in the same way some are saying they wont enforce abortion bans.
So how do you plan on taking all those guns without a whole bunch of shooting and dying on both sides and bringing the economy to a screeching halt due to guerrilla warfare?
Those that already own their guns, arent losing them; especially if they live in a red state that is friendly to their gun ownership. Those states also do not have registration, so you dont know who owns what or how many. They could easily hand over a few guns to throw the scent off them and pretend they have been disarmed. In fact, due to red flag laws in some areas, I would not be surprised if some gun owners have hid some of their stash in another location (a midnight red flag raid would then only obtain the guns they kept in their home; leaving them to drive to the hiding site and acquire their hidden guns when the cops have left).
Response to LiberatedUSA (Reply #4)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Angleae
(4,482 posts)WarGamer
(12,440 posts)Ocelot II
(115,683 posts)that's the underpinning of Roe, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. The originalists don't think that right exists because it's not spelled out or even mentioned in the Constitution. Heller, however, was based on an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that allows for private ownership of firearms with some limitations, which Scalia agreed were allowable. This court is not going to overturn a Scalia opinion issued only 12 years ago that upholds a principle near and dear to the GOP.
in2herbs
(2,945 posts)couldn't determine who lawfully owned a gun and who didn't for "traditionally lawful purposes" without some intrusion into their privacy to make this determination.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)the "pro-life" hacks on the SC won't do SHIT to upset their gun humping fans
KS Toronado
(17,220 posts)and then point out that Fascists always take guns away from civilians, maybe just maybe
a few gun humpers might think twice before voting R.
Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)lubruls!
They can still hate, so at least there's something.
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)There have been a number of decisions since Heller that rely on it and the court's liberal justices continue to vote as though Heller were not controlling. Heck, Breyer was pushing to overturn Heller just two years after the ruling was handed down.
IOW - you can't imply that the conservative justices shouldn't overturn Roe because a future liberal majority will decide that stare decisis isn't so important after all... when it's pretty clear that overturning Heller will already happen if and when the bench shifts.
appmanga
(571 posts)...because Democratic presidents don't tend to elevate frothing ideologues to the Supreme Court. And Heller is based on an interpretation of language direct to the issue of guns. It's been a while sine I've read it, but I believe Griswold spoke of a "penumbra" privacy rights that emanate from other enumerated rights in the Constitution. Despite all the barking from the right-wing about certain words not being in the Constitution, the average person on the street instinctively understands the greatest right in this country, which also happens not be stated in the Constitution, is the right to be left alone and for the government to not intrude on you as you (as another famous document says) pursue your happiness. The part of the Republican party that isn't fascist is the American Taliban.
AlexSFCA
(6,137 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)They don't give a shit about text. They only care about the result.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)sarisataka
(18,633 posts)Are women's rights to self determination worth so little that they can traded for a little gun control?
I'm afraid I know how some would answer.
CaptainTruth
(6,589 posts)...because it seems I'm often misunderstood & my most important points are missed by others.
That creates a difficulty for me because I'm self-employed, running my own company, & I don't have the luxury of ample free time to spend writing lengthy posts that make my meaning crystal clear.
I'm going to try to do better, because the alternative is to just stop posting & I don't want to do that. I care too much.