Should Hillary Clinton be elected in November, legal analysts warn that her nominees to the Supreme Court would likely “no longer consider Americans to have an individual right to ‘keep and bear arms,'” according to Fox News.
In her DNC address she claimed that she only wanted to pass “common-sense reforms.”
But the Democratic candidate has taken issue with the high court’s current view of gun rights. Leaked audio from a Clinton fundraiser in 2015 revealed Clinton telling donors “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.”
Legal analysts say a Clinton appointee could mean the court would no longer consider Americans to have an individual right to “keep and bear arms” – a right the court only affirmed by a narrow 5-4 decision in 2008.
“They may reverse that decision, or they may limit it so it doesn’t mean much,” David Bernstein, professor at George Mason University, said.
Several experts said the court would most likely take a stealthy approach to avoid causing too many political problems. But it would still mark a change in the judicial winds for gun rights.
“They would say ‘you have the individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to reasonable regulation — loosely defined,’” Bernstein said, noting that the “reasonable regulation” could include policies such as a handgun ban for all citizens unless a person could convince authorities they have a “good reason” to own one.
Such bans might then be implemented by cities such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., which banned handguns until the courts recently forced them to allow ownership.
Read more here.
Help support the legal programs of The Calguns Foundation:
[gravityform id=”21″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”true”]
