District of Columbia v Heller
District of Columbia v Heller
On reading the Second Amendment “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.” it would seem reasonable to interpret this as basically meaning that people must be allowed to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. This interpretation was cemented by a 1939 Supreme Court ruling in United States v Miller. This ruling allowed for the regulation of certain weapons provided that it did not impact the efficiency of a well regulated militia. In the ruling, the Court explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the militia[i].
This
interpretation was however overturned in 2008 in the District of Columbia V
Heller case where the plaintiff Heller challenged the constitutionality of a
Washington D.C. handgun ban. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a
long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear
arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in
the militia, or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated
militias.
By a five to four margin, the Court held that the
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful
use, such as self-defense, in the home. Accordingly, it struck down as
unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that effectively banned possession of
handguns by non-law enforcement officials and required lawfully owned firearms
to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business
place, or being used for lawful recreational activities.
According to the Court, the ban on handgun
possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class
of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose
of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be
disassembled or locked made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense. These laws were unconstitutional under any of
the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional
rights[ii].
Whilst it is dubious that this meaning was as
originally intended by the framers of the Second Amendment, there is no doubt
that it is a popular interpretation. Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, a
Gallup poll asked the following question:
Do you believe the Second
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own
guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as
National Guard units the right to own guns?
A massive 73% of respondents responded that it
does guarantee the rights of Americans to own guns, with only 20% believing it
only guarantees the rights of state militia members[iii].
This underlines the popular support for the Right to Bear Arms in the United
States.
Firstly,
most new laws it would prevent were never realistic possibilities in the United
States, regardless of the Heller decision. As an example, a federal handgun ban
although effective in reducing homicide rates in other countries is not a realistic
proposition in the United States and would never be proposed as it would be
political suicide due to the overwhelming public support for the right to bear
arms. The District of Columbia v Heller ruling has set a clear boundary for
which all proponents of gun-control must be aware. Blanket bans on guns at
federal, state, or municipal levels are not a realistic proposition and are
unlawful.
Secondly, in the Ruling, it was made clear that the
Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun-control laws
remain presumptively lawful, according to the Court. These include laws that
(1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons
or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, (5) prohibit “dangerous and
unusual weapons, and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents[iv].
In other words, sensible laws on gun safety would not be prevented from the
Ruling.
A good example in which to determine the extent
the Heller ruling can be used to prevent new gun-control laws is whether this
would prevent a ban on Assault Weapons? In February 2018, the Washington Post
published an article on this matter noting that to date Courts have ruled that
the Second Amendment does not protect the right to own Assault Weapons.
In 2017 a federal appeals court considered whether
a Maryland law passed following the Sandy Hook massacre banning assault weapons
was unconstitutional. This law had been passed in the aftermath of the Sandy
Hook massacre, which left 20 first-graders and six adults dead after a man
bearing an AR-15-style weapon stormed the school in Newtown, Conn. The court
ruled that the ban on assault weapons like the one Adam Lanza used at Sandy
Hook was constitutional. This was the fourth time in the past decade that a
federal appeals court had ruled that a ban on assault weapons was permissible
under the Second Amendment and at the time of writing no federal appeals court
has ever held that assault weapons are protected.
The bans on semiautomatic guns or assault weapons
have been upheld for 2 reasons. Firstly, banning them, the courts have said,
does not curtail the right of self-defense protected by the Constitution, since
there are plenty of other weapons such as handguns and regular long guns available
for people to protect themselves. Secondly, the courts have said, states and
municipalities have legitimate reasons to ban AR-15-style weapons because of
the dangers they pose, to schools, innocent bystanders, and police[v].
So, in summary, the District of Columbia v Heller
ruling does not present an insurmountable obstacle for those wishing to enact
sensible and realistic restrictions on gun purchases and ownership. It can also
be argued that this ruling is beneficial in that it sets a clear boundary.
For example, if a modest safety proposal is
suggested such as closing the gun show loophole, or strengthening background
checks, the NRA and other gun-rights advocates will argue that this is just the
start of a slippery slope and before too long there will be a complete ban on
guns. They install a fear that “We’re coming to get your guns” and this
mentality is frequently used as an attack against any senate, congress, or
presidential candidate who is in favor of strengthening gun control. The
response to these accusations should be along the lines, that we respect the District
of Columbia v Heller decision and have no intention of taking your guns, as we
recognize this would be illegal. This ruling should make the coming to get your
guns claim obsolete.
[i] Cornell Law School. Legal Information Institute. UNITED STATES v.
MILLER et al. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
[ii] Cornell Law School. Legal Information Institute. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA v. HELLER. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/07-290
[iii] Jones, J. (2008, June 26). Americans in Agreement with Supreme
Court on Gun Rights. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx
[iv] Rose, V. (2008, October 17). SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER. Retrieved
from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm
[v] Flynn, M. Barbash, F. (2018,
February 22). Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons? Four
courts have said no. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/22/does-the-second-amendment-really-protect-assault-weapons-four-courts-have-said-no/
Comments
Post a Comment