So I’ve just finished reading Scalia’s opinion in D.C. v. Heller (my apologies to my current employer), and I think my punt analysis was close to the mark. Yes, the D.C. gun ban went the way of the buffalo, based on a sophisticated analysis of the role of guns in society.
The decision states that the weight of historical research supports the position that the right of law abiding citizens to secure their other rights through force of arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. The D.C. gun ban failed because it included “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” (Being churlish for a moment, I wonder what will happen if the citizens of the District decide to use their new found gun right to secure their right to vote?)
Other than that finding however, (which I grant is significant) not a whole heck of a lot seems to change in terms of the regulation of firearms under the police powers granted to the state. The decision expressly notes that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It goes on to note that
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
and
we think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.
So Big Show’s dream of rocking himself to sleep while cuddling an AK-47 are probably not right around the corner. Keep hope alive buddy!
It seems to me that this has just opened up the court system to another 30 years of regulations and lawsuits, trying to flesh out the boundries of what constitutes appropriate regulation outside of a complete ban. Finger printing? Registration? Licensing requirements? If none of these prevent a law abiding citizen from using a firearm in a lawfully contemplated manner (e.g. home defense), is that a problem?
As I mentioned before, I’m sure this will be hotly debated, so have at it.
