Subscribe Today!
Networked Blogs
Jun
26
Historic 2nd Amendment Decision
Filed Under Second Amendment, Supreme Court
Photo by Horizontal.Integration
People are allowed to have handguns in their homes, if they aren’t disqualified from exercising their Second Amendment rights, holds the U.S. Supreme Court majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), 554 U.S. ___ (2008).
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
The Court split between conservatives and liberals. Justice Scalia delivered the Court’s opinion with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joining. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion and Justices Souter, Ginsurg, and Breyer joined. Justice Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion and he was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.
Justice Stevens writes in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia.
It will be interesting to see the Supreme Court’s Heller decision has any effect on Gary, Indiana’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers.
It also underscores how important the 2008 presidential election will be if any of the justices retire during the 44th president’s term. In this case, it showed a differences between the Justices — the majority was in favor of individual liberties while the minority favored collective (in the form of a government militia) rights.
Comments
7 Responses to “Historic 2nd Amendment Decision”
Isn’t it amazing that in a nation of over 300 million voters a dangling chad in Florida can present an opportunity for a court of nine justices to rule and eventually seat a President 5-4? I know the post is about gun control, and the gun ruling by this same court.
Have you considered how amazing is our constitution? It works. This American experiment is working and we are hindered in being able to accomplish more, on purpose.
I get a little frustrated when young people complain that government isn’t doing enough. Government isn’t supposed to do a lot. It is supposed to be hard to get things done, so they can never become brutal and oppressive.
CH:
You raise an interesting point with re: to the S. Ct. decision and the city’s lawsuit. Guess it did not cross my mind at the time the decision was announced.
How can one be liable for engaging in an action which furthers constitutionally protected activity? Seems the latest decision has all but blown the city suit out of the water?
It will be itneresting to see what creative moves will be taken to try and dance around the latest decision!
Hi Steve,
It’s ironic that the same people who complained about Florida and the Electoral College are often members of a party that uses a similar system to pick their party’s presidential candidate.
While it is easy to become complacent about this year’s election — control of the Supreme Court will be the critical issue for both sides since the Court has been stuck in a 5-4 mode for many years. The 44th President will have a huge say on how the court votes for at least 20 years or so.
Hi Dave,
It will be interesting to see what happens now that the Second Amendment has been found to apply to individuals — not just the state via a militia. Will that mean that the gun lawsuit — which could potentially limit an individual’s constitutional right be an infringement upon the Second Amendment?
I doubt that all gun control laws will be stricken from the books, but it is likely complete bans and other cumbersome laws will fail to pass constitutional muster.
This will be a lot like these smoking bans which are the rage right now. Minor restrictions of limiting minors’ access will be fine. But over-arching and over-reaching laws banning things won’t stand up in court.
Guns are a right. Limiting access to youth, or mentally challenged, or criminals … that probably flies.
Hi Steve,
You are on point that limiting access to criminals, etc. will be okay. The Court isn’t going to allow guns inside federal courts and other secure places, but they also aren’t going to allow for complete bans and other restrictions that infringe upon a right contained in the Constitution.
It will be analogous to the right to privacy that has evolved to mean that most limitations on abortion are usually found to be unconstitutional by the courts. The same protections that are afforded the right to privacy should now be afforded to the Second Amendment — i.e. no unreasonable restrictions of a fundamental right will be allowed by the Court.
The Court has spoken and once they’ve set a precedent, the judicial policy of stare decisis means the prior holdings won’t be disturbed.
gun control should always be imposed strictly to avoid another Columbine scenario`*;