Supreme Court Ruling Backs Individual Gun Rights
Andrew Cohen
Legal Analyst
Posted:
06/28/10
The U.S. Supreme Court declared Monday that individual gun rights under the Second Amendment apply and may be used to block enforcement of certain restrictive state and local gun control ordinances. By a 5-4 vote along the court's familiar ideological lines, the justices jeopardized two Illinois ordinances and threw hundreds more around the nation into doubt. At the same time, however, the court reiterated its view that lawmakers could continue to impose certain reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and possession.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago that, unsurprisingly, relied extensively upon the court's 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia. In the Heller case, the court first and famously recognized an individual gun right under the Second Amendment to block a very restrictive federal ban on handguns. "In Heller," Justice Alito wrote Monday, "we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense." To now treat that recognized right "as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees," Justice Alito wrote, would track against common sense and the court's precedent.
In reaching it's widely anticipated ruling, the court also endorsed much of the rationale provided by those who challenged the Illinois statute. "If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense," Justice Alito wrote, "then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials."
Yet even as the court's majority took away power from state and local legislators, it sought to reassure them -- and gun control advocates around the nation. The Second Amendment, he wrote, like all other constitutional rights, is not absolute. "We made it clear in Heller, Justice Alito wrote, "that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as 'prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,' 'laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.' We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote to say that he would not have voted to "incorporate" the substance of the Heller ruling to apply to state and local regulations like the ones at issue in Illinois. "Even accepting the Court's holding in Heller, Justice Stevens wrote on his final day of a 35-year career on the Court, "it remains entirely possible that the right to keep and bear arms identified in that opinion is not judicially enforceable against the States, or that only part of the right is so enforceable. It is likewise possible for the Court to find in this case that some part of the Heller right applies to the States, and then to find in later cases that other parts of the right also apply, or apply on different terms."
The ruling all but assures a great deal of litigation over the scope of the McDonald ruling. We will now see a wave of lawsuits by gun rights advocates seeking to invalidate gun control measures across the country. Many of these challenges will succeed -- especially where the local or state gun laws are similar to the one struck down in Heller or challenged in McDonald. At the same time, state lawmakers around the country are likely to struggle to discern the true scope of the Heller-McDonald analysis. Does a gun restriction fall under the scope of the Second Amendment? Or is it one of those "longstanding regulatory measures" that Justice Alito expressly endorsed for the majority?
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago that, unsurprisingly, relied extensively upon the court's 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia. In the Heller case, the court first and famously recognized an individual gun right under the Second Amendment to block a very restrictive federal ban on handguns. "In Heller," Justice Alito wrote Monday, "we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense." To now treat that recognized right "as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees," Justice Alito wrote, would track against common sense and the court's precedent.
In reaching it's widely anticipated ruling, the court also endorsed much of the rationale provided by those who challenged the Illinois statute. "If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense," Justice Alito wrote, "then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials."
Yet even as the court's majority took away power from state and local legislators, it sought to reassure them -- and gun control advocates around the nation. The Second Amendment, he wrote, like all other constitutional rights, is not absolute. "We made it clear in Heller, Justice Alito wrote, "that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as 'prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,' 'laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.' We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote to say that he would not have voted to "incorporate" the substance of the Heller ruling to apply to state and local regulations like the ones at issue in Illinois. "Even accepting the Court's holding in Heller, Justice Stevens wrote on his final day of a 35-year career on the Court, "it remains entirely possible that the right to keep and bear arms identified in that opinion is not judicially enforceable against the States, or that only part of the right is so enforceable. It is likewise possible for the Court to find in this case that some part of the Heller right applies to the States, and then to find in later cases that other parts of the right also apply, or apply on different terms."
The ruling all but assures a great deal of litigation over the scope of the McDonald ruling. We will now see a wave of lawsuits by gun rights advocates seeking to invalidate gun control measures across the country. Many of these challenges will succeed -- especially where the local or state gun laws are similar to the one struck down in Heller or challenged in McDonald. At the same time, state lawmakers around the country are likely to struggle to discern the true scope of the Heller-McDonald analysis. Does a gun restriction fall under the scope of the Second Amendment? Or is it one of those "longstanding regulatory measures" that Justice Alito expressly endorsed for the majority?