OK, not to long ago in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, our Supreme Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
So I’ve been wondering if that changes anything with regard to gun control, or assault weapons bans, or anything like that.
For example, there are a lot of people worried about what kind of restrictions and regulations the Obama administration will try to place on gun ownership. But now because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, is there anything he and the Congress cannot do, that they could have done before the case was decided?
And what about existing laws? Can any existing laws be challenged as unconstitutional now because of the ruling?
Bazookas too! Just fill out the paperwork and pay the $200 tax. Of course if you want to fire exploding rockets its a $200 tax on each one of those. Best hit with the first shot or it could get expensive.
Don’t forget that the ammunition itself is extraordinarily expensive as well. While you’re at it, also remember that the moment the first shot is fired the BATFE and local law enforcement know exactly where you are and will be coming for you. “Reasonable restrictions” have not been lifted, not one bit.
As for the OP, existing laws can indeed be challenged, and have been. Chicago’s DC-style ban on handguns was challenged almost immediately. Municipalities near Chicago lifted their bans in the face of a near-certain loss, but Mayor Daley will never give in so that one is going to court.
The problem with DC v. Heller is now every Tom, Dick and Harry criminal is trying to use the ruling as a defense in some way, and that is making things very difficult. For every case that has a chance there are 100 pinheads trying to use DC v. Heller as a hustle. It never works and it makes things harder for the important stuff.
You can make your own rockets. And as long as they are non explosive I think you can get by. I know some who have 37MM “flare launchers” for their AR-15s. As long as they don’t have explosive flares, they seem to get by just fine.
Yep, thanks for the clarification, it’s just a bit more paperwork. Now, would an all out ban on bazookas, no licensing, no nothing, be constitutional/a reasonable restriction? Not sure how the Court would come out post-Heller.
It’s not quite the slam-dunk you seem to think it is. While Heller established that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, the District of Columbia is administered by the federal government, and so Heller’s holding restricts federal infringement of that right. All of the freedom-protecting amendments to the Constitution originally applied only to the federal government, until passage of the 14th Amendment and some critical case law brought us the doctrine of “incorporation”, allowing citizens to challenge state infringements of their rights.
Federal case law conflicts on the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that the amendment is incorporated while the Seventh has ruled that it is not, with both rulings coming after Heller. I haven’t heard that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in NRA v. Chicago (the Seventh Circuit decision) but I’d be surprised if they didn’t. I’d also be surprised if they ruled in favor of Chicago, and declined to incorporate the 2nd. But I think calling it a “near-certain” thing goes too far.
It is indeed arguable, but I would submit that the reversal of strict gun-control policies in some of Chicago’s surrounding municipalities (Cite) is a solid indicator of which way the wind is blowing with regard to handgun bans.
I will say that this is merely my interpretation, but after all this time of fighting for the bans those communities reversed themselves very quickly once Heller was decided, implying that they thought they were going to lose anyway.
Winning a Supreme Court case is just as expensive as losing one. I would submit Evanston and Wilmette overturned their bans knowing that Chicago and Oak Park can more easily pay the cost of carry and those cities’ wins will be just as applicable to them too.
The suburban retreat isn’t without cost: their ordinances are now repealed, and will need to be enacted again if Chicago prevails. And they will face additional, expensive legal challenges if they attempt to compel the surrender or destruction of firearms acquired and moved into the cities between the repeal and re-enactment.
This doesn’t mean that the suburbs felt that the cause was lost, but it is a good indicator that they were not overly optimistic about their chances. Like I said, I don’t believe the Supreme Court’s decision in NRA v. Chicago, if indeed it grants certiorari, is a slam dunk. But I’d bet on it. The real question, to me, is how far Justice Kennedy will insist that the ruling be watered down. I definitely got the impression that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas would have been happy to take Heller further, if they could get a majority.
Arguing that the concept of “liberty” as it is used in the 14th Amendment includes concepts like freedom of religious choice, or the right to counsel, but not the right to bear arms is going to be a very hard sell. The basic reason for the second amendment is so that individuals can ensure their right to challenge an overbearing government. That seems pretty inherently a part of the concept of “liberty.”
You can read for yourself, but in a nutshell the appellate court decided that Cruikshank and Presser still controlled, despite the fact that both of these cases predate not only Heller but the doctrine of selective incorporation itself. As much as I may disagree with the opinion, I can’t really say it’s wrong… arguably, the judges had the discretion to incorporate or not, and in this case they punted to the Supremes.
IANAL, but it sounds to me like they were claiming that they didn’t have the authority to incorporate Heller (because of Cruikshank, etc.) and that the Supreme Court does so take it up with them. I saw something that was implying that once Sotomayor is on the court, it will decline to incorporate because Sotomayor reached the same decision as the 7th Circuit. Based on what I read here, that would require some twisted logic (unless they decide to totally reverse Heller). Am I right?
What, whoever wrote that the Court wouldn’t incorporate once Sotomayor was confirmed thought that Souter would do any differently??
It’s possible for the Court to decline to incorporate without reversing Heller… after all, the 7th Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial in civil matters has not been incorporated and does not apply to state courts. Incorporation is not automatic, although what criteria they would use and what rationale they could give for declining to incorporate I could not guess. IANAL either, and besides, ever since I learned about Wickard in high school I’ve understood that twisted logic is no barrier to a Supreme Court opinion.
IANAL, but my best guess would be that the precedent of Heller is to recognize a general right to self-defense; that a state cannot mandate that people remain helpless to defend themselves against (illegally) armed criminals. Especially if, as has been previously ruled, that state and local governments cannot be required to provide a prior guarantee of safety. IMHO, that would be the argument with the best chance of making a “federal case” against gun bans.
