Recently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear a case that will test the limits of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. The Court may hear arguments as early as March with a decision coming in the summer months.
At issue is a DC gun law banning private possession of hand guns. The law has been on the books for 31 years now, and was recently deemed unconstitutional by a U.S. appeals court. DC has appealed the ruling, and seeks to have the lower court's decision overturned. Advocates favoring DC's law will no doubt argue that the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms only protects that right in connection with service in a state regulated militia. Strong supporters of the Second Amendment, such as the NRA, believe the right to bear arms extends to private ownership of handguns. Even one professed liberal, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, "lamented" that the Second Amendment protects the rights of gun owners.
The case was brought by Anthony Heller, who would like a handgun for self-protection in DC. Though he believes the court's decision to hear the case is a victory, a better one for the NRA and citizens like him would have been if the Supreme Court had let the lower court's decision stand. Yet, it is likely that the Supreme Court is taking this opportunity to set a precedent on Second Amendment rights.
The outcome of this case could be an interesting one for gun owners and constitutional scholars alike. If the court decides that the right to gun possession and ownership is a fundamental right, DC must prove that its law serves a compelling state interest and is well tailored such that it employs the least restrictive means to achieve its goal. Their best argument is likely that the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right reserved for the individual - rather it was reserved "for a well regulated militia." However, as Turley notes, there are no militias as intended by the Framers. Therefore, it is likely that the Court will interpret the right to be an individual one.
Further, Heller makes a good argument. Though DC and gun control proponents will argue that banning hand guns is a compelling state interest (because it may cut down on gun related crimes, accidents, etc.), banning all hand guns may not be the least restrictive means to satisfy that interest. Heller makes an important argument that his possession of a handgun is for self-protection. He may argue that the outright ban on hand guns goes too far and prevents him from protecting himself. Additionally, the city's attorney has argued that because possession of shotguns and rifles is allowed, the ban is not too broad. However, Heller may counter and say that the law is under inclusive because gun crimes can still be committed with these types of weapons. If the court agrees with this, or any of Heller's arguments, the means used by the City may be not be properly drawn and thus unconstitutional. Following this case will be very interesting, and important, for South Dakotans who have great hunting and firearms industries.
Recent Comments