Legal News

Gaga Over Gun Control: High Court to Hear Second Case

By Ashby Jones

You had to suspect this would happen. You’d have to expect that the Supreme Court, having opened the Second Amendment box last term with its Heller opinion, would have to weigh in on the topic again soon to clarify what it might view as any misunderstandings arising out of Heller.

Indeed, that’s what’s happened. The court on Wednesday agreed to examine whether the Constitution puts limits on state gun regulations. The WSJ’s Jess Bravin is calling the move “the second phase of the justices’ re-examination of weapons rights in the 21st century.” Click here for the WaPo story; here for the NYT’s; here for coverage from Scotusblog.

Here’s why some fine-tuning is apparently needed so soon. Last year, in Heller, the court ruled that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to self-defense, and struck down a Washington, D.C., ordinance that effectively banned possession of handguns within the capital city.

But, writes Bravin, that decision rested on the District of Columbia’s status as a federal enclave and left unanswered what the amendment means for states. The agreement, as framed by Bravin:

Supporters of gun control say states are free to set their own weapons laws as part of their power to regulate militias, while opponents say the Second Amendment bars states from infringing on an individual right to armed self-defense.

The same attorney who challenged the District of Columbia ordinance, Alan Gura, brought suit against gun regulations in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. In the decision, McDonald v. Chicago, he Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, rejected the claims, citing an 1886 Supreme Court decision holding that the Second Amendment placed no limits on state authority. The Seventh Circuit ruled that only the Supreme Court could say whether the Second Amendment should be read otherwise.

In San Francisco, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that more recent Supreme Court decisions, including the Heller decision, implicitly overruled the 1886 case. The full Ninth Circuit voted to reconsider that decision, but held off until the Supreme Court decided whether to consider the issue.

Scholars long have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, whose elliptical language lacks the clarity of some other constitutional provisions. Some argue that it aimed to prevent the nascent federal government from disarming the autonomous states, while others contend that it suggests an individual right that isn’t necessarily tied to militia service. Adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on September 30, 2009 (boomark / email).