So, Lets say the Second amendment gets reinterpreted by SCOTUS

[The Meach]

A common argument of the far left against gun ownership is that the second amendment is being read wrong (because comma's are hard). But lets play the "what if" game and say they won. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme court decides that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals only to well regulated Militia. By the end of the day Congress the the prez pass a law outlawing individual gun ownership outright.

So here is my question, how does the "well regulated militia" apply to the states?

Would Indiana's current laws be enough to protect that states gun owners? Specifically, Indiana code 10-16-6-2 section 1: "The sedentary militia consists of all persons subject to bear arms under the Constitution of the State of Indiana who do not belong to the national guard."

 

[j4jenk]

That's a lot of what ifs. I'd say most people will do like they did in NY and CO and just ignore the law in regard to guns they already own. The impact would be on commerce through FFLs. Much easier to interrupt commercial activity than to kick in doors of people who are both armed and pissed.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Getting to that point would be difficult, given precedent in Heller, Heller II, and McDonald, as well as in federal law (title 10, IIRC?) defining the militia in terms of all men 18-44 not in the National Guard. Further, George Mason and Tench Coxe, again IIRC, both gave definitions of what is the militia, both defining it as the whole people.

Five leftists with an agenda could get to that point, of course, but when they can't define the location of 11 million humans illegally here, how on earth could they define the location of approximately 300 million guns in private hands?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyDave1776]

On the theoretical side of the issue, I am going to say that the Wickard v. Filburn decision clearly demonstrates that an 'activist' court can 'interpret' the Constitution to say whatever the hell they want it to say. That leaves the door open not only to the collectivist right (i.e., the National Guard has the right to arms, not individuals) to determining that so long as we are 'allowed' to have sharp sticks, our rights aren't infringed because we have access to some fashion of 'arms'. Also likely is it being found 'constitutional' and not an infringement so long as it is theoretically possible to receive official permission, by meeting any number of arbitrary criteria and/or defending your 'need' to the satisfaction of the local officials, or as in NYC or California where you can theoretically receive official permission so long as you are either in the employ of a law enforcement agency or else enjoy the patronage of a sufficiently influential politician, but otherwise can forget it in spite of the fact that permission is theoretically available to you even though in reality it isn't.

On the practical side, I am going to argue that rounding up the guns would be easier than rounding up the illegal aliens. The first problem regarding the aliens is that no one is really making an honest attempt in the first place which skews the comparison. Second, there is no record of their existence aside from any birth records kept locally at their point of origin, unlike guns which can be traced from manufacturer to wholesaler to FFL to first buyer. We all know that the first time the gun is resold in a non-registering jurisdiction it 'disappears', but still the record of its existence is there, where there is no record of even the initial introduction of an illegal alien. Third, guns are inanimate objects and as such don't move of their own volition or actively hide from the police. Your guns are not going to sprint for the woods in the face of an impending search as opposed to illegals who would scatter like cockroaches.

The next problem is that while some state laws have fallen flat on their faces, particularly recent examples demanding citizens register their guns, if the problem originated with a stacked Supreme Court, we are likely to see not only a buggered up interpretation of the 2A, but also some creative interpretation of the 4A dramatically loosening the standards for searches. This could involve any combination of lowering the standards for issuing warrants and lowering the standards for requiring a warrant to execute a search, Constitution notwithstanding.

All things considered, I could see this easily becoming a situation in which we will have the two and only the two choices of capitulating or, well, not capitulating. It would not likely be possible to stick your head under a teacup and wait/hope for it to blow over. It is entirely possible that the powers that be would consider attrition an easier solution than kicking in doors, but it would be very unwise to suppose that kicking in doors would not be a viable alternative if they so chose, even if it would be a time consuming endeavor by sheer volume.

If Hillary gets to appoint justices, it is going to be a long winter!

 

[KellyinAvon]

Just think about how hard it would be to confiscate the guns owned by illegal aliens.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Just think about how hard it would be to confiscate the guns owned by illegal aliens.

Indeed so! With the rest of us disarmed and the .gov sitting on its thumbs, they could easily retake California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and NM, just like they have been crowing about doing.

 

[Thor]

If Nazi Germany could confiscate all the weapons (they included bludgeoning and stabbing weapons on the list) from their political enemies with the aid of basically the first generation IBM punch card system then there's plenty of data out there to do the same here.

Getting the political support to do so would be their problem, obviously they'd need a crisis. Certainly one could be manufactured but the believability, therefor effectiveness would dictate that it be on a grand scale. And in that scale of a crisis it would be hard to make the argument that it wouldn't be better for us all to have guns.

If attempted though the question then becomes is it April 19th 1775 or November 9th 1938. The answer to that question will tell us what country our children will live in.

 

[Thegeek]

A common argument of the far left against gun ownership is that the second amendment is being read wrong (because comma's are hard). But lets play the "what if" game and say they won. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme court decides that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals only to well regulated Militia. By the end of the day Congress the the prez pass a law outlawing individual gun ownership outright.

So here is my question, how does the "well regulated militia" apply to the states?

Would Indiana's current laws be enough to protect that states gun owners? Specifically, Indiana code 10-16-6-2 section 1: "The sedentary militia consists of all persons subject to bear arms under the Constitution of the State of Indiana who do not belong to the national guard."

If it ever gets to that point, I'll say the Militia will probably define it for them.

 

[chipbennett]

It may be different in other states, but: here in Indiana, who would the State get to carry out enforcement of such laws?

 

[spec4]

My vision is that once the liberals went this far there would be a spontaneous, nationwide, unorganized (at first) outbreak of resistance. One would think the specific perps (liberal SCOTUS members) would become very concerned for their personal safety. In reading about Hitler, I found he was fanatical about his personal safety.

 

[cosermann]

. . . but when they can't define the location of 11 million humans illegally here, how on earth could they define the location of approximately 300 million guns in private hands? ...

Can't? It's not a question of ability. It's a question of will.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It may be different in other states, but: here in Indiana, who would the State get to carry out enforcement of such laws?

I'm afraid you'd be surprised.

 

[Robert Richardson]

I think a lot of us would be reinterpreting the term "Lawful Government"

 

[chipbennett]

I think a lot of us would be reinterpreting the term "Lawful Government"

You mean, something like this?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Robert Richardson]

You mean, something like this?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Yes sir, That is exactly what I was referring to

 

[T.Lex]

One of the last things I would do is post what I would do on a public internet forum.

 

[HoughMade]

One of the last things I would do is post what I would do on a public internet forum.

I will.

One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the antis will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new anti overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted internet personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

 

[indiucky]

One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the antis will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new anti overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted internet personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

I told you those full size ads on the FEMA box cars were a good idea....Way to be ahead of the curve hough...

 

[The Meach]

I get that everyone would protect their rights if Hitler jr. took over.

But my question is more of a legal "what if"

In the state of Indiana would a general ban even apply in the case of a redefinition of the federal second amendment? With all citizens of the state being defacto members of the state militia wouldn't such a maneuver actually have the unintended consequences of expanding the selection of firearms for hoosiers to own (auto, explosive, ect?)

 

[HoughMade]

...With all citizens of the state being defacto members of the state militia wouldn't such a maneuver actually have the unintended consequences of expanding the selection of firearms for hoosiers to own (auto, explosive, ect?)

If being in the militia gave the recognized, legal right to own full military-grade weapons.....why don't we have that right now?