The Supreme Court today, for the first time in history, ruled a gun law unconstitutional on second amendment grounds. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the handgun ban in the District of Columbia is unconstitutional. The full opinion is not available, so I'm speculating to some extent, but not wildly. The ruling suggests that, for the first time, the federal government is now essentially in charge of gun laws at a local level, and that localities should be severely limited in the extent to which they can impose restrictions on gun use. Chicago's handgun ban will also likely be invalidated.
In the debate over the second amendment, the historical context is consistently lost. At the time the amendment was written, most localities in the US had gun control ordinances, and many places had policies that we would find highly restrictive today. The second amendment was never, ever, intended to prevent localities from imposing restrictions on gun ownership and use within a given locality. The intent was to prevent the federal government from moving in and, through legislation or other action, disarming a state or locality and thus leaving it defenseless in the face of tyranny. The drafters would have likely found an interpretation that, in effect, allows the national government to move into a locality and dictate local gun ownership rules as being every bit as tyrannical. Again, I haven't read the full opinion as it's not yet available, and this may tie into DC's special relationship with congress and therefore be a more narrow ruling than advertised, but everything I've seen so far indicates that it's a fairly broad ruling.
Those who call themselves conservatives enjoy little more than railing on and on about "activist" judges, reinterpreting the constitution and making law from the bench. Though I'm sure the ruling will be praised in those quarters, it's another instance of hypocrisy: just because you happen to like the outcome, doesn't make it conservative. This ruling, if it reads as it appears it will, suggests a new interpretation of the constitution involving a further massive expansion in federal power. The increasingly mediocre legal minds on the court are no rarely any more concerned with strict interpretation or judicial philosophy, but only with producing a politically desired outcome. That's not conservative, but it is worrisome.
Update: OK, so I still haven't read the full opinion, because they're really long, and I have a job. Some of the original reporting, thought, indicates that the decision is even broader (and more tortured) than I'd believed. Apparently the Supreme Court has, for the first time, decided on a rock solid interpretation of the Second Amendment: it doesn't depend on a collective right to defense; the majority interpretation is now that individuals have an almost inviolable right to bear arms. No higher court has ever interpreted the second amendment as broadly. Any law that restricts your ability to act with a gun "for the purpose of immediate self-defense" is out the window, including trigger lock prohibitions. Licensing requirements are still OK, as are restrictions on guns in government buildings. And it's still OK if felons are prevented from packing heat. Bear in mind what I've said above, and also keep in mind that when the federal government moves in to ensure your right to carry a gun in almost all circumstances, they're simultaneously taking away your right to live in a community without guns, and the right of a locality to make those decisions, as the constitution clearly intends.
Comments