The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms...

justin-paulette

Justin Paulette

Justin Paulette is an attorney practicing international law in bella Italia. He hails from the great Buckeye State, "The Heart of it All," the only state with a bridge which you can cross and still be on the same side of the river, home of the hot dog, pop top soda can and the largest basket in the world! Though he's spent the past decade jet-setting across the Atlantic with one foot in London and the other on Capitol Hill, he still fancies himself a Mid-western, God-fearing, role-playing geek at heart.
Posted:
06/26/08

Painting of Patrick Ferguson.... shall not be infringed!


Well, maybe.


The Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional the D.C. law banning handguns. "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." Scalia's majority opinion in the 5-4 decision divorces the right to bear arms from the militia portion of the 2nd Amendment, thereby tying an "individual right to possess and carry weapons" to an inherent right of self-defense. This profound interpretation provides the Court's first unequivocal decree on the 2nd Amendment.


However, the court cautions several limitations. First, just as it does not read the 1st Amendment "to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose" (i.e., yelling fire in a theater), it likewise does not read the 2nd Amendment "to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation." Restrictions will still be permitted with regard to felons, the mentally ill, school zones, etc.


Far more importantly, however, is the recognition that D.C. is a federal entity - not a state. And the Court seems to imply that the 2nd Amendment has not hereby been incorporated such that it applies to the states. Hence, the case may not provide binding precedent nearly anywhere else in the nation. We will have the right under the 2nd Amendment, but the Court may not enforce the amendment beyond the federal government. (This seeming injustice is actually constitutionally correct, as the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states, but only to the federal government. However, as the Supreme Court has enforced other provisions of the bill of Rights on the states, it would seem arbitrary and unjust to deny this right - unless all other rights were similarly rescinded ... an unlikely event.)


Expect an explosion of litigation on this issue in the near future - and watch to see if the Court is eager to take up those cases and expound upon today's ruling.