Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile
I believe local/state restrictions will be upheld in the form of "reasonable" restrictions. This leaves the door open for interpretation of "reasonable" and naturally keeps lawyers employed for the next 50 years fighting over the meaning of it. This is not really the outcome I'd like to see, but I'd be shocked to see even this "conservative" court uphold "shall not be infringed" to actually mean "shall not be infringed" meaning the citizenry can own whatever they want. This is (IMHO) what the FF intended, but I'd be very surprised to see the court interpret it that way.
But one can hope. . .
I will, however, hold off on buying an AR-15 until the court's decision. How badly would it suck to buy a stupid 10-round-limited setup only to have the court lift state/local restrictions and then have to go out and buy a whole new lower receiver assembly? Not likely, but knowing my luck, that's what would happen if I bought one today.
Aww hell, maybe I'll just go get a shotgun instead for the time being.  |
There are some CA-legal AR15s that have a removable magazine, but you have to use a tool to release the latch (like, the point of a bullet). Perhaps those could be easily converted to a "normal" AR15 when the time comes.
At a minimum, I'd think the Supreme Court will permit states/cities from imposing reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
Read today's WSJ article on the topic - Thomas has hinted he might believe in an individual right to own weapons, Roberts has never said anything about it. But Scalia has written that the federal govt may not prohibit individuals from owning weapons for self-defense
but that the states may do so, and there are four justices who dissented in the Court's decision to invalidate part of the Brady law. So odds don't look so great for a finding of broad and strong individual right.