Supreme Court Ruling Changes Plot of New Muse Book

[Xaa]

As readers of this series know, I had assumed that by the time of the books, pretty much all firearms would be prohibited, and had been for about a century by the time of the stories. This is not a result I *wanted* to see in the future, but merely one I expected.

I repeat: The situation in the Muse universe vis-a-vis guns is NOT the situation I would LIKE to see happen, it's just what I EXPECTED to happen.

I have been sitting on this book (it's pretty much done) because of the Supreme Court case, DC v. Heller. The District of Columbia's lawyers had been pushing hard for an interpretation of the Second Amendment - and so had Heller's lawyers, and quite a few others on both sides. As such, I felt that there was one of two results:

A) DC's law would be upheld, and it would lead to a steady string of constitutional erosions until the 2nd Amendment was eventually repealed.

B) DC's law would be struck down, and it would lead to a new definition of what the second amendment allowed, and how far gun-control laws could go.

Option B is what happened.

Given that this is the case, I now have to take a look at the ruling, and try to figure out how we could get from where we are today to where they are in the Muse universe. Fortunately, we only have Liz' perception of reality to deal with. She only says that no civilian has been allowed to posess a firearm for a century. She doesn't say why or how.

[Kilarin]

Interesting!

But one of the problems with our legal system is that just because they uphold the constitution today doesn't mean they won't overturn it tomorrow. <sigh>

So, I'm not certain that this decision will last.

[Xaa]

Jun 26, 2008 15:25:54 GMT -5 Kilarin said:

Interesting!

But one of the problems with our legal system is that just because they uphold the constitution today doesn't mean they won't overturn it tomorrow. <sigh>

So, I'm not certain that this decision will last.

I'm sure it will, simply because the Supreme Court has always been VERY reluctant to revisit this issue.

Consider the case history - the local court upheld, the circuit court overturned - boom, we're up to the Supreme Court.

Sounds pretty simple, until you realize this is the sixth or seventh time a case of this nature has come before the Supreme Court in the last twenty years. And every time prior to this, the supreme court has allowed the lower court's ruling to stand, usually by simply refusing to hear the case. The fact that they even heard it was literally historic. And the decision they made was also literally historic. The last time a decision of this magnitude was made was back in 1939, and that opened the door to all the gun-control laws we have today.

The current decision, boiled down to it's basics, says that you can't require trigger locks, you can't require disassembly, you can't prohibit guns entirely, and affirms the 2nd Amendment as an individual right (like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights - all are individual rights, not collective rights of society). And that last bit is actually the most important - as an *individual* right, both the federal and state governments have to come up with some pretty damn good reasons to revoke it. Remember, the right to vote is an individual right. So is freedom of speech. The government has to come up with some pretty damn good reasons to deny your right to vote or speak out - and very often when they do, they end up being overturned.

No, I can't see this as being overturned anytime soon - certainly not within our lifetimes.

Now, I *can* see it being subverted.

For example, the Liberal's current wonderful idea is to require all firearms to have "signature grips" - in other words, the gun will fire only when it recognizes your handprint.

Problem: The technology to do that doesn't exist, thus, passing laws that require nonexistent technology for you to own a gun essentially prevents you from owning a gun without actually prohibiting guns at all.

Carrying that notion further into the future, even after the technology is developed, all they have to do is pass a law that regulates the use of the technology, requiring all applications of it to be approved by the government before they may be applied - they can call it a "personal identity security" measure, saying that they don't want someone's personal information to be stolen - after all, such scanners have to be able to access such information before they can verify who you are (or aren't).

So, it's still very possible to subvert it, through establishing a legal catch-22 in requiring a specific technology, then preventing that technology from being implemented in a way that would satisfy the requirement.

[Kilarin]

Consider the case history

Good point. And I certainly hope you are right.

Am I correct in my understanding that they did NOT address whether this rule applies to the states via the 14th amendment or whether it applies only to the federal government? Since they ruled on a DC law it wouldn't actually settle that question, would it?

[Xaa]

Jun 26, 2008 16:57:16 GMT -5 Kilarin said:

Am I correct in my understanding that they did NOT address whether this rule applies to the states via the 14th amendment or whether it applies only to the federal government?

Here's the PDF of the decision.