Whether our second amendment rights are further codified or eroded in the coming years is yet to be seen. Ruth Ginsburg sees reversal of Heller Versus D.C. on the horizon with a “future, wiser court.” But that’s only part of the battle. In the future, local politics may be even more important, since the federal government is only one guarantor of our rights as firearms owners and users.
If the particular state in which you reside is unfriendly to firearms rights, they may have Supreme Court decisions upon which to base their intrusions. But if more friendly to our rights, at least there is a battle to be waged between states and and intrusive federal government.
This isn’t determinative, and it doesn’t obviate gun rights problems, but it does give us a firmer foundation upon which remediation of federal problems may occur, even if difficult and even if the fight is a long one.
I would disagree, because of this:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
This is known as the “Supremacy Clause” and we’ve seen how it works with marijuana. Marijuana is legal for medical use in several states, but not legal under federal law. And whenever the feds feel like making that point, they simply swoop in and arrest people who are violating the federal prohibition, but not state laws.
To put it more bluntly, if the feds decided to ban handguns, say, it wouldn’t matter in the slightest what the states say about it.
And since we have become accustomed to a nation in which the U.S. Constitution is whatever a handful of Justices say it is, rather than its plain, black-letter language, then the men and women appointed to make those judgments are of (literally) supreme importance.