Would conservatives be okay with a future Supreme Court overturning D. C. vs Heller which guarantees a right to own a gun?

[Anonymous]

Okay Roe was overturned because the justices were pro life and didn’t like abortion. They said it was because of the fact that abortion was illegal in most states at the time of the 14th amendment was first adopted and when Roe first came into law but interracial marriage was illegal in most states when the 14th amendment was first adopted and when Loving became law back in 1967 and interracial marriage was legalized nationwide. I feel as if the Supreme Court governed on their own personal values so I feel as if that lets say 50 years from now we have a liberal Supreme Court and they overturn D. C. vs heller because it goes against their personal values would conservatives be okay with that.

[BCA6010]

The US Supreme Court doesn't "govern," their sole purpose is to determine whether a federal law is legally permissible within the confines of the constitution. At the time Roe v Wade was ruled upon, even its staunch supporters acknowledged that it was unconstitutional at the time, and that an actual amendment to the constitution would be the only way to guarantee its longevity. In other words, it was passed by activist judges, and overturned by originalists, not the other way around. By design however, such issues aren't supposed to be federal government issues in the first place and are supposed to be actually governed at the state level.

Since the right to bear arms is explicitly outlined in the constitution, there's basically no judicial argument to be made to the contrary, so it would require an actual constitutional amendment to make that happen. The US Supreme Court should actually be doing the opposite and tearing down unconstitutional federal and state laws, which they have attempted to do but are basically just being ignored since the power of enforcement belongs to the executive branch.

[BeMuse]

It wouldn't do anything to gun owners because the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You can try to twists words all you want, it will just get you shot dead on someone's lawn.

[Anonymous]

They would not be ok with it but it could happen under a future court. The individual rights view is a fairly modern interpretation. Just like with Roe, justices could see it differently in 50 years. That’s just the nature of the process.

[joeldalton]

The SCOTUS governed on their values when they made the original decision on RvW.

[Anonymous]

Maybe. Do you think those who claims women and minorities need guns to protect themself would be ok with those peoples right to own a gun revoked?