How destructive would a full ban on civilian gun ownership be in the U.S.?
Take a look at the carnage wrought by the War on Drugs. Double or triple that. If a complete gun ban was put in place by some magical happenstance (and you really would need magic for this to happen in any sort of foreseeable future), the first problem would be the cost and the logistics of dealing with the people who actually go along with it. In order to take property from someone, you have to compensate them for it. Average gun is $400-500, with the fancy guns going into tens of thousands. We will ignore the ones in hundreds of thousands, because there aren't that many, and I'm sure people that own those will find some way around the ban. Assuming even half of the 350 million guns are handed in, you are looking at 175 million X $500 = $87500000000. Pocket change for the government, right? But wait. You have to have facilities to store them until destruction, people to staff and guard those facilities, someone to transport and destroy them. All those people would need to be paid. Local police forces don't have the resources for something like that. So, we can probably multiply that by 4 or 5. And then you will have people who will not comply. There are tons of reasons why, ranging from the fact that Americans hate being told what to do by anyone, to people driven by ideology, to people who are just going to be lazy about it. This is where it's going to get bad. Really bad. Police forces in US are already quite fond of drug raids. Now, they will do gun raids. Look up Waco and Ruby Ridge. That's what gun raids look like. There will be more of that. Police will also feel even more justified shooting people who they think might have a gun, since that would automatically mean a criminal. I will give you three guesses which communities are going to be the hardest hit. First two don't count. The answer is "the minority ones". Things might quiet down in a couple of decades, but the death toll until then will make foreign wars US likes to fight pale by comparison.
How do you evaluate Scalia’s 2008 decision regarding Heller v DC. Is it a plus for the gun rights side or the gun control side after ten years?
In general, it’s a plus in that it correctly states that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people… individual people, not just a militia.But, it is wrong to suggest that the 2nd allows restrictions on the type of firearms that the 2nd includes. There is nothing suggesting that full auto rifles can be removed from the protections of the 2nd amendment. In contrast, being that the weapons included must be of a level that insures that a militia is well regulated (works as intended). For that, a MILITia would need MILITary weapons.No where does it suggest only popular weapons owned by civilians are covered.
Would it be legally possible to change the constitution regarding gun laws?
Sure. It is called the Amendment process. It is in Article V of the US Constitution.Article VThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.So absolutly you have legal redress and means to change the constitution. Yes the process is hard, and was made so deliberatly.It was deliberatly made very hard to take away people’s constitutional rights.You have two seperate processes you can use, getting 2/3 of both houses + 3/4 of all state legislatures (the president gets no say at all either way).Or a constitutional convention called by getting 2/3 of all state legislatures to call for it, and 3/4 of all state legislatures to pass amendments made.On a Practical levelPractically I think any such effort to attack any of the bill of rights, including the 2nd amendment is doomed to fail for generations.Gun rights advocates will paint this as an assault on the bill of rights, and intimate you intend to do away with freedom of speech, and the rest of the bill of rights and turn the USA into a police state.Gun rights advocates can almost certaily stop you in both the house & senate, all they need to block is 1/3+ 1 vote in either house.In state legislatures you need 38 states to ratify, they only need 13 to block.The USA has a lot more rural deep red states than urban deep blue, and will for the foreseeable future, so on a practical level it is very unlikely to work.Go ahead and try.
Constitution and amendment question?
1. Constitutionally made slavery (involuntary servitude) illegal. 13th Amendment. Abolished slavery within the United States (interestingly, if they repealed this and teh 14th Amendment, it could be legal again, at least as far as the Federal Government is concerned... this should be a lesson in that which is legal is not always right. Conversely, that which which is illegal is not always wrong. 2. Prohibition of alcohol. 18th Amendment (prohibited the sale, manufacture or transport of alcoholic beverages) and the 21st Amendment which repealed it. Self-explanatory. The 18th was the culmination of the Prohibitionist movement. The 21st was pretty much the nail in its coffin. 3. Suffrage for women (19th Amendment). Again, self-explanatory.
Do you think the Supreme Court would strike down a federal assault weapons ban (not a state one) and leave it up to the states?
Assault weapons, are by nature full automatic. We have that issue well covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and other federal laws. In my humble opinion the states like California, New Jersey, New York and others where people that truly know less about firearms than I know about brain surgery, are making laws regarding all things firearm related based on feeling and voter demographics. This, and not the NFA 34, that horrendous abomination the GCA 68 and all the other federal BS, is the problem. and should be ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Just because it’s a state law does not automatically mean it, or it’s creator should be enshrined on Mount Olympus.Our legitimate, enumerated, human rights are far, far, to important to be left in the hands of some arrogantly ignorant, totally personal agenda driven, slime ball politician at either end of the spectrum. The Supreme Court is aware of the issues, but has chosen to wisely (for them) stay out of it until there is a clear liberal or conservative overbalance on the Court. This may be a great display of wisdom but, for now, it leaves us at the mercy of a few elected would be demigods. I feel truly sorry for the people of those states , both those that are being truly oppressed and those that are being played as “useful idiots” by their deluded would be rulers. Someday, I think every last vestige of those political leaders will be reviled and erased and those who have fought their agenda of ignorance will be remembered as heroes, but I’m old. I’m not Methuselah, and I certainly don’t want to be, but I would like to see this come about. In the meantime, there are certainly those places I will not be visiting, I won’t regret it and they certainly won’t miss me.
What is the role of the U.S.Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress. It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government. The President nominates justices to the court. The Senate must vote its approval of the nominations. The whole Congress also has great power over the lower courts in the federal system. District and appeals courts are created by acts of Congress. These courts may be abolished if Congress wishes it. The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.