In two important opinions released this morning, the Supreme Court has:
- held (by a 5-4 vote) that the 2nd Amendment creates a limited individual right to own a gun. From SCOTUSblog:
the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun – except one kept at a business – must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.
There are several important limitations to today’s ruling:
Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.
Also — and this is quite important —
The Court took no position on whether the Second Amendment right restricts only federal government powers, or also curbs the power of states to regulate guns. In a footnote, Scalia said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second into the Fourteenth Amendment, thus applying it to the states, was “a question not presented by this case.” But the footnote said decisions in 1886 and 1894 had reaffirmed that the Amendment “applies only to the Federal Government.” Whether the Court will reopen that issue thus will depend upon future cases.
So, really, the overall effect of this opinion may be quite limited, since it sounds like strict licensure laws should not be affected. I mean, really, does DC’s extreme law banning outright the possession of guns in the home exist anywhere else? [UPDATE: A knowledgeable source informs me that Chicago also has such a ban in place.] I would assume that someone will fairly quickly challenge a strict state gun-control law in order to resolve the state/federal issue, since it remains unclear whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states or only to the federal government (recall that Congress has legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, so the state issue was not presented in today’s case). UPDATE: Sure enough, the NRA has already announced that it intends to challenge gun bans in Chicago and San Francisco.
- held (by the same 5-4 vote) that the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment” to the campaign finance laws violates the First Amendment. The Millionaire’s Amendment basically says that if self-financed candidates for office spend above a certain amount of their own money, the usual fundraising limitations (e.g., $2,300 per individual donor) are raised — but only for their opponents. The Court held that creating an uneven fundraising situation was too great a burden on the First Amendment right to spend as much of your own money as you want on getting elected.
The 2nd Amendment case is available at this link. You can read the whole campaign finance decision here.
As always, SCOTUSblog is the place to go for thoughtful, unbiased, non-partisan commentary. Read them before you read anyone else.
This is what we get with our two, new, wonderful US Justices. I hope Democrats, who were unwilling to filibuster them, are happy. This is definitely a new interpretation of the rights of gun ownership and it really makes my heart sink.
I’m serious — is the decision really so bad?
The DC law was excessive. Specifically the case challenged was a security guard who was required to arm himself according to the rules of his (nationwide) security firm but ended up violating this city law. Hopefully this will lead to the overturning of the ban in Chicago. That law has gotten grandmothers arrested simply for arming themselves in rough neighborhoods.
<
p>The government has the responsibility to defend its citizens life, liberty, and give them the right to pursue their happiness. Using that logic we must let them defend themselves and/or provide for themselves with the right to own guns. This also defends their liberty and to a lesser extent their right to use them recreationally. Now certainly this right is not and should not be so broadly interpreted that any weapon no matter how dangerous to the general public is permitted. Scalia of all people still allows states to ban certain types of guns and even allows the Congress to ban certain guns. This is keeping in line with the precedence of the 1939 case that upheld a federal ban on sawed off shotguns. Banning cop killers, armour piercing rounds, assault rifles, etc. is just sensible legislation.
<
p>Lastly I would also argue that the previous assertion that this is the Democrats fault for refusing to filibuster Alito or Roberts is a flawed one. Roberts replaced Rhenquest who would most certainly have voted with the Majority. Alito replaced O’Connor, a swing voter on most cases, but O’Connor was a conservative on gun cases. Lastly Kennedy likely would have sided on this side of the court regardless as well.
<
p>To be fair on other issues the replacement of a moderate conservative (O’Connor) with a reactionary one (Alito) can be felt on a wide variety of cases. But not for gun cases.
What is your basis for saying that? Statutory cases, maybe, but that’s an entirely different kettle of fish. The Court had not heard a 2nd Amendment case since 1939.
is no way to defend yourself. It’s far more likely to be accidentally fired and kill someone than it is to be used in your defense. If you want to defend yourself, use mace.
<
p>America sees upwards of 15,000-20,000 handgun related deaths a year, whereas the number is around 300-500 in countries like France and England. Suicides, murders, kids accidentally killing other kids… there are thousands of these cases in America every year that need not happen, just so you can “defend” yourself. How absurd!
That’s true. I suppose there’s always kung fu.
Arming yourself is a bad way to defend yourself.
<
p>With a handgun, it’s not as if it’ll prevent the crime from happening in the first place: it’s concealed. Yea, maybe if you’re walking down the streets with a bazooka, the local thief will pick someone else’s wallet… but that’s a bit preposterous, isn’t it?
<
p>There are also plenty of other devices to keep yourself safe in case you’re attacked – a basic self defense course, mace, keys, etc.
Those countries do not have tougher gun control laws. Canada has much tougher gun control laws and it is having a big mess of a time controlling drug gangs in the big cities and has to deal with a big crime wave.
<
p>I think arming everyone would be an interesting experiment to see if crime actually drops if every potential criminal thinks someones got a gun maybe they won’t committ the crime. But its too risky of an experiment to ever run. So in the meantime I think meaningful restrictions are good. Banning assault rifles and armour piercing rounds for one. Background checks, restricting gun shows, having a license and training to use the equipment, etc. can go a long way to ensuring the bad guys don’t get em, the good guys do, and the good guys are trained enough so that their kids don’t blow their faces off if they get into their parents gun closet.
<
p>Personally I don’t think Ill ever buy or need a gun to defend myself. But it is a basic right secured by the Constitution and many people in less safe neighborhoods might feel safer with this kind of detterence. The DC law was only enforceable against good law abiding citizens that merely sought self protection. Look at the crime rate and murder rates in DC and Chicago where theses policies were enacted. They actually went UP as these policies went into effect. Better to give people responsible choices and options for their self defense, and sure guns are not the only nor even the best option, but for some people it is and the choice of a law abiding American to own a firearm should not be abridged.
You state:
<
p>
<
p>Oh really?
<
p>England, for one, allows only 2+1 round “shotguns”, narrowly and carefully defined, to be widely owned. To get any other gun, one must obtain a “firearm certificate.” To get a “firearm certificate” individuals must jump through a number of hoops including, most significantly, convincing the local police that you have a “good reason” to own a particular gun “without danger to the public safety or to the peace”. By practice, ever since World War II, a “firearm certificate” is issued only if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Self-defense has never been considered a valid reason to own a gun.
<
p>Without going in to details, France allows a few more of their citizens to own handguns but their regulations (no concealed carry, for example) are much more restrictive than the vast majority of U.S. states.
<
p>I’m willing to discuss the many implications of these differences but it is virtualy indisputable that these restrictive laws have lead to a much lower rate of gun owenership (particuarly handgun ownership). This lower rate of ownership has clearly resulted in lower rates of suicide by gun and accidental shootings.
<
p>Similarly the UK has a lower rate of assault/homicide by use of hands/feet. Clearly, it’s because a Brit has fewer hands and feet than an American.
The “gun lobby” would support guns without responsibilities. Probably not a good idea as there are some people out there that shouldn’t be trusted with a can opener. While, just as alcohol sales don’t make most people go out and get drunk forever, nor gun sales lead to impulsive murder, it is probably wise to limit sales to people without criminal histories or psychological problems.
<
p>The “gun ban lobby” wants the elimination of guns for private parties. Probably not a good idea as we see the only guns removed are ones from honest folks, leaving them defenseless against armed criminals. (Face it. Your local police are too busy racketeering and moonlighting for the drug dealers to save your behind.) Even if you were able to get illegal guns off the street, what of the machetes, baseball bats, switchblades or homemade guns? Do we ban automobiles because a person deliberately kills another with one? What of those people that need a gun to go to the outhouse at night? (Oh, yeah, bears, wolves – not everyone lives in Boston.)
<
p>Why not look through the gun laws of the states in this great nation and come up with a standard law that states could adopt as the UCC was adopted? In fifty states there must be some reason and sanity.
<
p>
This is New England here. We’ve done pretty well operating on the traditional regional view that 40+ states in the Union are full of, or at least run by, people that are certifiably insane or just plain idiots. And we’re not so sure about the rest.
<
p>National gun laws are basically reflections of how riled up and active our national populations of psychopaths and barbarians are. Scalia is one of their major federal representatives; Cheney is the other…. đŸ˜‰
of where this is heading does pain me, David. I’ve always held the belief that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, a protection of arms for militia, not a personal right to own hand guns. That’s what the cases I’ve read, historically, have shown in the past.
<
p>If it were up to me, all hand guns would be banned – I’ve seen up close what they do, when my cousin took a bullet in the head in Lynn about 10 years ago. She had absolutely, positively no idea it was coming; there was nothing she could have done to stop it. Her friend was being abused by an ex boyfriend, my cousin came to stick up for her, asking the guy to leave – and she was killed for it, at the age of 18.
<
p>And now, we’re telling one of the murder capitals of the nation that they can’t use a reasonable measure (banning handguns) to help protect the streets? So, yes, I’m sickened.
I am sorry about your cousin, but that was the situation – it could have been a knife as easily as a gun.
hit unintended targets down the block. knives often get thrown by mistake because the safety was off. puh-leeze!
isn’t as likely to kill someone as a gun. at least with a knife, you’re more likely to see it coming and there’s a greater chance it’ll make a superficial wound. Plus, not that I’ve ever stabbed or shot anyone, but I’d think it has to be a lot easier to push a trigger than to actually stab someone.
The British call to {ban certain kniveshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm] will no doubt be followed by the ban of cricket bats.
plenty of laws restricting knives in the US too…
David would probably know them better than I do, at this point, because I haven’t taken Con Law in years and forget the cases. But there were two or three of them, if memory serves me, and in each case they upheld the right for Government to restrict the ability of people to buy guns.
Felons, the mentally disabled, etc. cannot own guns now, and this doesn’t change that.
<
p>Where the DC law went too far was in stating that EVERYBODY in DC, regardless of their behavior, criminal past, etc., could not have a gun. What the court said is that the Second amendment is equal to the First, and the Fifth, and so on. People DO have an intrisic right to own and use guns, UNLESS they have DONE something to forfeit that. States can only regulate the CIRCUMSTANCES of such ownership, but cannot ban it outright.
I find that new and frightening.
the Court specifically did NOT say that the states are bound by the 2nd Amendment. Because this case concerned regulation in the District of Columbia, no state law was at issue, and the question whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states has never been decided (and was not decided today).
The only issue in the Chicago case will be whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states. If it is, then the result is a foregone conclusion. But the incorporation question will be a new and quite interesting one.
that today’s decision says nothing about incorporation, and will not be useful as precedent on the incorporation issue.
This:
<
p>
<
p>doesn’t even begin to hold water. Here’s why: A gun is designed to actually kill another human being, while a knife is designed for general use in the kitchen, for example. Also, while a person hell-ben on murder could stab his/her victim to death, the chances of surviving and fully recovering from a stab wound are sometimes a little better, depending, of course, on the depth and wheareabouts on the body of the stabbing. Secondly, it’s much, much easier, in a heat of anger or passion to just simply pick up the gun, aim it at someone and pull the trigger, all from a distance, whereas with a knife, one has to go right up close to the person to stab him/her. Also, one has to bear in mind that a person without a gun can’t stab or beat 20-30 some-odd-people to death. A guns kills or maims more people much more quickly, if one gets the drift.
This:
<
p>
<
p>is not being disputed. However, a gun does it much more quickly, and is even more likely to permanently and adversely alter the life of the shooting victim, proving that s/he survives.
the question of what, exactly, the 2nd Amendment actually says is what was at issue in Heller. You can disagree with Scalia’s parsing of the language — Stevens certainly does in his dissent. But it is quite true that, surprisingly, that issue had never been directly addressed before. Previous 2nd Amendment cases really did not resolve it. I’ve read Miller (the 1939 case) carefully; it’s astoundingly elliptical, which is why no one has been able to agree on what it means. I haven’t read the cases from the 1800s, but I believe the numerous scholars who say that the same is true of them.
<
p>So yes, today’s case breaks new ground, but it does so because it resolves an important point of constitutional law that had heretofore been unresolved. That’s rare, but it does happen.
<
p>Also, respectfully, the fact that DC remains “one of the murder capitals of the nation” despite this ban which has been on the books since 1976 does perhaps suggest that an outright ban may not be the most effective strategy. Chicago has a similar ban; not sure it’s such a great example either. Indeed, from Justice Breyer’s dissent:
<
p>
of course, if you ban it in just one area, but not another, the ban itself isn’t going to be the most effective measure in preventing hand-gun related deaths. However, states with bans that extend throughout the entirety of their territory have been extremely successful in mitigating hand-gun related deaths, such as France and England, which have a tiny fraction of the proportion we do on a year to year basis.
but your original point was:
<
p>
<
p>It appears that DC’s statute did not, in fact, help protect the streets. That’s all I’m saying. Whether such a measure would be more effective if it covered more territory is a different question.
There are various factors for why crime went up during that period, who knows how large or small DC’s law played. Obviously, the people of DC or whoever enacted DC’s statute didn’t think it was so ineffective that they should get rid of it.
Comparisons to international rates of violence are almost as meaningless as comparisons of health care systems.
<
p>Example:
<
p>-UK and Japan have low rates of both gun ownership and gun violence.
<
p>-But, Switzerland has high gun ownership rates but low violence.
<
p>-Mexico has low gun ownership rates and high violence.
<
p>It’s true that the UK has a much lower total homicide rate, and also a lower gun homicide rate. So anti-gun folks claim that it’s the gun ownership that causes the homicide rate differences. But, Britain’s rates of knife homicide and of killings with hands and feet are also far lower than the corresponding rates in the U.S. I guess you could make the argument that Brits have fewer hands and feet and therefore lower hand/foot violence, but that’d be silly, no?
<
p>Must be something else: correlation doesn’t equal causality.
It’s as simple as that.
<
p>I’m not going to argue against the fact that there are other factors, too, but you’re going to have a tough time convincing anyone that strict gun safety laws aren’t a major factor of why countries like GB and France have less gun-related deaths (and not just in total terms, but per capita).
<
p>I don’t want to take away your rights to have fun, Gary, but I do think reasonable measures should be taken to remove as much of the threat to the public as possible. Personally, I think that means most people should have to keep their guns at shooting ranges and/or gun clubs, etc. If that’s such a tremendous burden, let the NRA become a nonprofit gun club association where memberships are free… or something.
<
p>We live in a machismo gun culture. It’s getting innocent people killed – dozens of them in Boston over the past year alone.
Anyone ever do a study of rates of gun-related deaths per gun rather than per capita?
the legislator who pushes and anti-gun bill at the same time as an anti-swimming pool bill will get my vote, entirely out of the fact he or she is being honest.
…but I would guess he’s referring to this, and this non-nonpartisan link claims 25 times the number of accidental deaths from swimming pools compared to guns.
<
p>It’s a pretty established meme on the right that the gov’t couldn’t possibly be interested in gun control as a safety issue, and this is one of the things often cited to point that direction.
<
p>—>Shane
Wish there was an easy edit option.
Water in swimming pools kill people.
I keep hearing from police officers all the time that what they fear most is the rapid rise in swimming-pool related crimes in their districts.