|
all it would take is the supreme court to interprate the word 'arms' in the second admendment to that of the time it was written. The SC could also interprate the right to bear arms dosent mean the right to use them, or to have the ammo, or if it was a really wierd SC to mean that arms means the arms (limbs) on the body. It could also determine that sure, people do have the right to bear arms but put a limitation on what type of arms.
Infact the supreme court can say whatever it damn well likes and, unless it changes its own precedent (not likely) or the constitution's changed there isnt much that anyone can do.... (article 3 section 2)
Anyway, i think it is possible, but not likely
|