On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one of the most important cases in years, District of Columbia v. Heller. Currently, there is no definitive interpretation of the second amendment, especially in relation to a group (militia) or individual right. The history of the second amendment is very complex as the colonies developed their own tradition (e.g. Pennsylvania had a similar amendment as the second amendment but no state militia, giving some credence to the individual right interpretation yet in other states gun rights were associated with the state militia). Legally, there is very little precedent in this area as the last case to discuss this occurred in 1939. Of course, prudential concerns dominate the debate as not everyone is as responsible as Paperweight Writer with the use of firearms and some firearm bans reduces violence and makes the job of police safer. Further complicating this case is that it occurs in D.C. and not a state. Finally, according to Dahlia Lithwick at Slate, even the Bush Administration is at odds with one another over this case as Solicitor General Paul Clement sides with D.C. (for some regulation or at least incremental changes) and V.P. Dick Cheney is for Heller (individual right, meaning the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional).
If the Supreme Court rules that the ban is unconstitutional and that the second amendment covers individual rights, like the other rights in the Bill of Rights, that would not preclude the government from creating some gun control, as there are restrictions with free speech or religion. However, the level of review would be strict and most gun laws may be struck down. If Heller wins the case, the gun rights advocates may look to target other bans in major cities to ensure that the second amendment applies to the states, making the police forces in those area a little uneasy.
A decision in this case most likely will not be handed down until the end of the term.
No comments:
Post a Comment