Smoke, you seem like a pretty smart guy. However we disagree on what a Clinton Presidency would do to American gun rights. ALL it will take is a Clinton election to undo Heller and McDonald. The Supreme Court is the most important issue in this election. The next president will appoint at least two and maybe three new Justices. Hillary's appointments will be disastrous. I'm voting Trump and win or lose, at least I will cancel someone else's vote...Geo
No, of course I do not trust him, but he's the only choice for gun owners this time.
Please do not misunderstand me. I think Clinton would be horrible for gun rights. She has no business receiving the vote of a person to whom the Second Amendment is dear, which includes me. I was speaking strictly from a legal perspective.
I said that she will not likely be able to
reverseHeller. I never said she couldn't effectively
erode Heller. Reversing a precedent is a herculean effort that can take lifetimes. Since the government cannot simply bring a case to the Supreme Court, the only method by which the precedent could be reversed is if a draconian handgun (it would have to be handgun, or very common weapon like a pump action shotgun) ban were passed. The law would have to survive trial court and intermediate appellate review, and then the Supreme Court would have to vote to reverse the precedent. It's unlikely. Some of the Justices who dissented from
Heller recently voted unanimously to uphold the decision in
Caetano.
Erosion is a separate issue altogether. Unlike reversal, Clinton could erode the Second Amendment right by signing laws into effect that violate what is outside the core of the right (the Court said the core is the right to possess commonly owned weapons, for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense, within the home). That could mean doing a lot of things that violate the Second Amendment without abolishing its core.
That's the distinction I'm talking about.
