U.S. Supreme Court Set To Extend Gun Rights

Handguns. Photo: Joshuashearn (CC)

Handguns. Photo: Joshuashearn (CC)

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a landmark gun rights case that could apply the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to both cities and states. Warren Richey reports for the Christian Science Monitor:

The US Supreme Court appears to be on verge of extending the constitutional protection of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to every jurisdiction in the nation.

During an hour-long oral argument at the high court on Tuesday, several justices exhibited a willingness to enforce their landmark 2008 gun-rights decision at the state and local level.

If they do so, the decision may doom not only the Chicago handgun ban at the center of Tuesday’s case, but other handgun bans and some of the toughest state and local gun-control laws in the country.

The only remaining question in McDonald v. Chicago was which constitutional mechanism the majority justices might use to apply the 2008 holding to state and local governments. (For a preview of the case, click here.)

Two years ago, the high court recognized an individual right to possess handguns in the home for self defense. By a 5-to-4 vote, the court struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. That case was District of Columbia v. Heller.

Because the Second Amendment has never been applied to the states, the ruling could only be enforced against the national government and in federal enclaves like the District of Columbia.

A similar handgun ban is at issue in the Chicago case. But before judges can consider the constitutionality of the ban, the Supreme Court must decide whether the same Second Amendment rights it imposed in the Heller case will also apply in Chicago and across the country. (For Monitor commentary, click here.)

There are two possible ways for the high court to extend Second Amendment protections to state and local governments. Both are found within the text of the 14th Amendment.

Questions and comments by four of the justices who formed the five-justice majority in the Heller case suggest a preference for using the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment…

[continues in the Christian Science Monitor]

, , , ,

  • Phil W

    The 14th Amendment was not legally ratified therefore any case law resting on it is void. Moreover, the Constitution is a document of limited federal powers. The 10th Amendment states that if the states, or the people of that state, choose to enact gun laws, it is within their purview to do so, however, the Federal government may not. Hence a correct ruling in Heller.

    • Hadrian999

      the federal government have shown time and again the will of the people mean nothing.

    • me

      States cannot enact laws that nullify our constitutional rights.

  • fedupwiththefed

    The constitution “means” what the men with the biggest guns says it means.

    • Phil W

      I cant disagree with either comment. SCOTUS has historically sided with the State vs the people, so we should be able to figure out how they will vote.

  • GoodDoktorBad

    Bang, bang you're dead….

  • malatesting123

    just clearing the way for white guys with guns to go totally apeshit on behalf of a bevy of fascists and thier corporate masters….cant train the stormtroopers if they cant bring guns into the city.

  • Anonymous

    This is not about telling states and people what they cannot do, it’s about making sure every individual person retains the rights that they need in order to function successfully in a free society. If guns are banned, then the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves (from criminals as well as from the government) is dissembled. Because if guns are banned, it’s not going to stop criminals from obtaining them, and any otherwise law-abiding, responsible person who chooses to still keep a gun for protection then becomes a criminal through no fault of his own.

    This is why the framers replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, because with the former, states had unlimited powers unto themselves and could set up a totalitarian dictatorship if people let them (which they would, because it would seem to make the peoples lives easier).

    In short: guns = freedom + safety

  • Tatonka

    This is not about telling states and people what they cannot do, it's about making sure every individual person retains the rights that they need in order to function successfully in a free society. If guns are banned, then the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves (from criminals as well as from the government) is dissembled. Because if guns are banned, it's not going to stop criminals from obtaining them, and any otherwise law-abiding, responsible person who chooses to still keep a gun for protection then becomes a criminal through no fault of his own.

    This is why the framers replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, because with the former, states had unlimited powers unto themselves and could set up a totalitarian dictatorship if people let them (which they would, because it would seem to make the peoples lives easier).

    In short: guns = freedom + safety

21