Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
As it is, some lower courts have already been writing decisions assuming Heller would be incorporated and there are two cases in California have been on hold while waiting for this decision.
WRT Breyer's dissent WRT "democratic decision-making", Alito slammed him pretty hard:
"First, we have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a “popular consensus” that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental.
[...]
Third, JUSTICE BREYER is correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights."
That JUSTICE STEVENS is not applying any version of Palko is clear from comparing, on the one hand, the rights he believes are covered, with, on the other hand, his conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is not covered.
I've never read a set of opinions in which one member of the court so clearly slams the opinion of another (although IANAL, let alone a SCOTUS expert). Does this signal anything about the future of the court, or about the Chief Justice's leadership?
This ruling (as I understand it) mainly has the effect of incorporating[1] the 2nd amendment onto state and local governments, and doesn't deal much with with actual interpretations of the amendment itself.
In fact according to the article
Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation.
Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing measures as keeping felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns or keeping guns out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri...
(Edited for formatting)
And who knows, the really bad states are also in the worst financial shape by and large (strange, that...), they're going to be under new management sooner or later (already are in NJ, the other big ones would be NY, MA, IL and CA).
But I wonder what this will do to the overly-restrictive regulations of, e.g., NJ and CA. While NJ nominally provides for concealed-carry permits, in practice it's impossible to obtain one unless you're politically connected. Also, they routinely violate their own rules that guarantee that purchase permits be issued or denied within 30 days.
Note, the Brady bill waiting period was automatically retired as each state implemented their part of the nationwide "Instant Check" system.
"A guy with a bunch of priors for beating his wife can walk in a buy a gun."
Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" (formally the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban) makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes.
WRT to all the above, most people who aren't part of the gun culture have no idea how highly regulated guns are in the US today.
WRT the Second Amendment's explicit restrictions, like the other parts of the Bill of Rights it doesn't get into the necessary details, and no one reasonable thinks ones like it are "absolute". E.g. you don't have right to shout fire in a theater (unless, of course, there really is a fire). That's not set out in the First Amendment but no one has trouble with that restriction.
That's not exactly correct:
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. [1]
Logically, then I think that the latter part (about the domestic restraining order provision) ought to be vulnerable now. However, I really doubt that Court would be willing to reexamine this in the current context, since in Emerson it was judged Constitutional. [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_...
There are about 100,000 full auto weapons legally owned by civilians in the US.
There are 3 known crimes that have been committed using a legally owned one, but two don't exactly count: one was by a cop and the most recent was that insane case of criminal negligence where a pre-teen was handed a Micro-Uzi and allowed to fire it without an adult helping.
I wouldn't fire a Micro-Uzi without slowing working up to the point where I was sure I could handle it. One parent on a gun politics mailing list that I'm on who owns full auto weapons and who let his kids fire them emphasizes how he makes sure he has a "death grip" on the weapon to ensure it stays under control.
That said, the large number of people who've fired rented or borrowed full auto weapons at events like Knob Creek without incident shows it's not terribly dangerous.
Even so, 2 out of 100,000 compares quite favorably to the proportion of automobiles that have been used in violation of the law, or 1040 forms that have been used similarly.
Heck, a Micro-Uzi is essentially a big handgun, you should never give a handgun to someone that young without intense training and supervision. I started shooting long guns in kindergarten but was a teen before my father started me on handguns (other more handgun oriented parents have started their children on handguns earlier; Massad Ayoob's daughter was winning competitions as some insane age like 7 or 9).
And that's 100,000 over decades; the law dates back to FDR's first year or so in power and the number was frozen by another law in 1986.