I’ve said before magazines are poor places for developing stories — the time between events and publication may be months, and assumptions may be proven wrong in the interim.
Nonetheless, we’d be remiss if we didn’t highlight the June 26 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v Heller, wherein the majority held “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia …”
That’s the first time they’ve so ruled, and as such, it’s huge. But as with all things, read the fine print.
First, understand this case was never intended to resolve any but a very narrow scope of issues. It was intentionally crafted that way by the attorneys who initially brought suit, and who figured keeping things simple would resolve the basics. It will be up to future cases to iron out other implications. The plus side is their strategy worked. The minus side is there will be future cases, and we might not always like their outcomes. So essentially, Heller decided that DC’s total handgun ban and requirement to store long guns either disassembled or locked up is unconstitutional. Left undecided is level of judicial scrutiny to be applied to 2A, and the issue of incorporation to the states — again, because these were not matters brought before the court.
Additionally, the court maintained the right is not unlimited, and suggested regulations that would withstand challenges, such as prohibitions on concealed carry, or “possession … by felons and the mentally ill … carrying … in sensitive places … and qualifications on … commercial sales.” Protected are weapons “in common use at the time,” which will no doubt be used to try and thwart challenges to in-place machine gun licensing and ownership laws.
It was a close decision, 5-4, with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion, and joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts. Dissenting were Justices Stevens and Breyer, who each wrote an opinion, and Souter and Ginsburg. That these four did not “get it” means they refuse to, regardless of evidence.
Justice Stevens’ dissent claimed the amendment protects an individual’s right to participate in a militia(!), and complained that past court decisions would now be set aside. Attorney David Hardy (See “Rights Watch,” March 2007) analyzed Stevens’ opinion and pointed out glaring errors, such as writing that US v Miller upheld a conviction (it didn’t), and misstating Perpich v Dodd to claim the president created the National Guard in 1901, when it was the Congress in 1903. This suggests Justice Stevens hadn’t read what he was citing.
Breyer didn’t do much better, relying on colonial fire protection storage ordinances to make his point, and proscriptions of that era against firing guns in town.
What’s next? Lawsuits challenging city handgun bans have been filed by NRA and CCRKBA. Anti-gun politicians are red-faced in fury. Anti-gun groups are spinning this as a new opportunity for “reasonable regulations.” Some gun rights activists are crowing, others are warning about potential negative fallout.
But it’s now recognized as an individual right. Just like we’ve been saying all along.
Want to be an informed reader? Read the entire Heller decision in a PDF form.
Click here for PDF.
|
