Obama's Speech or Supreme Court on Gun Rights...which is more important?

[Garcian Smith]

TheSource said:

Personally, I've always wondered what the hell would happen if the Supreme Court decided the Constitution meant only militias could have guns, and that individuals couldn't.

Would people really give up their guns in the age of the Patriot Act? I think people with guns would essentially protest or shoot the people trying to take the guns away.

Its going to be interesting. I don't like guns in theory, but in practice, the truth is if we ever had a truly power obsessed president, gun laws mean millions of americans would have the opportunity to shoot the bastard.

 Well, a ruling that the Second Amendment does not provide for a universal right to bear arms would not mean a ban on firearm possession. Instead, it would be left to the states - or, perhaps, to Congress - to determine what weapons should be allowed, and to what extent. And, really, that's all right with me; state and federal legislatures are the bodies best suited to weigh all of the disparate policy matters involved in crafting handgun legislation, if any, and individual states can still include a general right to bear arms in their state constitutions. 

The important thing is this case, though, is that it'll determine to what extent the Roberts Court is politically motivated. If they rule that the Second Amendment provides for a right to bear arms, then they will be working against the plain text of the amendment, which succinctly states the policy reason behind the amendment as a whole. Given that the Roberts Court has a history of strict constructionism with regards to Constitutional matters, it would be highly unusual for them to rule in favor of a general Constitutional right, and I suspect that if they do, there will be a pretty major outcry of "judicial activism."