Since precedent no longer matters...

[Marius25]

If Democrats get the majority on the Supreme Court again, we can overturn Heller and restrict guns again like we have for most of US history going back to the 1700s.

[Phoenix61]

1. +1,000nt

[elleng]

2. Right, like Plessy.

[Igel]

4. Precedents get overturned from time to time.

Like Plessy.

Like Baker.

And Bowers.

Granted, Bowers wasn't a long-standing precedent, but for for quite a few decades the issue didn't get to SCOTUS, and for decades before that culture took the place of law.

We usually care more about outcome than stare decisis, so Brown, Hodges, Obergefell are great things, even if they trampled stare decisis. If we agree with the outcome, let stare decisis be trampled--in fact, ignoring it is a positive virtue. If we disagree, then stare decisis is defense against evil and is sacred.

It's called "being human."

[Marius25]

5. Plessy didn't actually get overturned.

It's still literally on the books. The Court didn't get rid of it.

They just updated it with Brown v. Board of Education, which effectively makes it meaningless.

But if you get rid of Brown v. Board, Plessy becomes the defacto law again.

[elleng]

6. In 2021, the Louisiana Board of Pardons unanimously approved a pardon of Plessy,

sending it to Gov. John Bel Edwards for final approval.[58] Edwards granted the pardon on January 5, 2022.[59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

[sanatanadharma]

3. Alioto's draft presents arguments that could be repointed towards gun restrictions.

Blue States could pass laws challenging the current Federal/ States balance.
You have a right to a gun.
You do not have a right to privacy about that gun ownership.
Cities can enact laws for the common defense.

There are no explicit rights to be free of rigorous background checks, registrations, insurance, etc.
Historically, towns have had gun bans.
The current lawlessness of gun ownership is a due to 21th century precedent, not legal thinking from a half century or more past.
Guns are an real and present danger to the 'right to life'.

[SoonerPride]

10. which of course the court would strike down.

they don't care about being legally sound or making logical arguments.

They start with a position and then work backwards to find whatever reasoning they think they need to vote that way.

[Polybius]

7. We can, but it would be foolish to do so

IMO Heller was correctly decided.

[Marius25]

8. If you look at the history of gun rights

including the opinions of other Supreme Court justices and the gun restrictions in the Colonies, it definitely wasn't.

There is no Constitutional right for all individuals to have guns unless they're part of a well-regulated militia.

[sarisataka]

11. When in the history of gun rights

Were individuals prohibited from owning firearms whether in the militia or not?

[Marius25]

12. Here:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99

https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=NSDtg8HLdh-wzEdEcNDs8w

[sarisataka]

13. A personal opinion of a retired

SCOTUS justice does not carry the weight of law. Such opinion was not even in a dissenting opinion of a SCOTUS ruling.

The Conversation article reviewed some restrictions on gun ownership the founding fathers supported to varying degrees. None included militia membership are a perquisite to firearm ownership.

[Amishman]

15. I suggest reading up more on this, it is ambiguous at best, and likely did mean an individual right

There are plenty of examples of similar protections in state constitutions that do not have the militia condition. PA for example: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." There are others as well.

The second as a limited collective right would be oddly out of character with the other parts of the bill of rights and the intended purpose of that document.

Here is a long but interesting write-up from 2000 that accurately predicted the confirmation of the 2nd as an individual right. https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3285&context=dlr

All that being said, Heller does hold that reasonable restrictions are allowed and there is much more fertile ground for establishing legal precedent for common sense restrictions.

Plus gun ownership is rising again in this country. While things like bans on ghost guns and requiring background checks are still very well supported, stricter measures get onto thinner ice with public opinion.

[Marius25]

16. One of the many reasons I hate this country.

Americans are truly sick in the head to worship guns so much. It's just not psychologically normal.

[sarisataka]

9. So we can get gun control

For the low, low cost of women's reproductive rights...

Sadly I believe some would be willing to accept that.

[former9thward]

14. Maybe you can tell us how guns have been restricted "for most of US history" to the 1700s.