Like everyone, Im on pins and needles to see the D.C. v. Heller gun-ban decision, all the speculation is fun but meaningless, but fun. Yes, the Court seemed favorable to an individual right and overturning the D.C. total gun ban, even the lamestream media picked that up. But then you have to think about the Kelo decision (eminent domain) and McCain-Feingold (free-speech ban before an election), and its got to worry you. Theres no crystal ball.
The biggest problem I see is difficulty the Court faces in recognizing Second Amendment rights to invalidate the D.C. law, and somehow limiting that decision so laws dont fall nationwide — the Solicitor Generals concern. OK, so D.C.s total ban goes too far. How far can D.C. go when it rewrites its law and not offend the Second Amendment? How do you describe that?
Whatever direction the Court provides, D.C. will end up as a model for the rest of the nation, and the Pandoras Box is open. If D.C.s law falls, theyll pass something new, knowing full well it wont make it to the Supreme Court for another long long time.
Its lunacy to think there are no legitimate gun laws, as some loonies suggest, and that they all must fall. Disarmed prisoners, sentence enhancements, threats, reckless endangerment, smuggling — the hard-core criminal laws are not at risk, because those bans are not infringement. Those are reasonable, common-sense gun laws everyone wants (except the hard-core criminals).
But concealed carry, public possession, prohibited-places lists, travel, bureaucratic discretion, licenses, registration schemes — these are indeed put in jeopardy by a robust finding for 2A. Maybe the Court will limit itself narrowly to a person at home in D.C. and go no further, which would be a good first step but awfully hollow. And it would of course address the questions posed, and follow SOP for the Court.
Remember, the Bradys wanted this answered:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.
And Hellers team proposed this as the question:
"Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.
But the Supremes, in a rare move, posed the issue themselves:
Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.
Continue reading:
Add A Comment