In one of the few times in the history of the republic that they have given a judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling today that should please gun owners everywhere. The significance of today’s decision, however, lies in the consequential impact it will have not on federal laws, but state and local laws regarding gun control throughout the country.
The Supreme Court, in McDonald v. Chicago, explicitly stated that the right to bear arms under federal law also extends to state laws too, since the U.S. Constitution cannot be overridden by state laws. The decision ultimately overturns restrictive gun laws in the Chicago area (which were the specific subject of this case) and sets a precedent which preempts all states from making laws that run contrary to the Second Amendment.
Undoubtedly, this will lead to more confusion about the interpretation of the Second Amendment and, thus, more litigation. However, the high court’s decision today is, for the moment, the law of the land.
Two years ago, the Court dealt with the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, which centered on a law banning handguns in Washington, D.C. By applying the Second Amendment to the federal capital city, the Court held that such a law was inconsistent with constitutional principles, as it infringed on the rights of gun owners. With today’s decision, that rationale has now been extended to the individual states. Also, like today’s decision, Heller came down very narrowly, with five of the justices voting with the majority and the other four dissenting.
For the most part, the issue of gun control is not the political football it once was among politicians. Democrats, including President Obama, do not usually like to bring it up, especially when campaigning in certain rural areas of sometimes-blue states. It seems like the vast majority of the American public recognizes a citizen’s right to carry a firearm – although many do favor certain restrictions in obtaining particular firearms.
What is amazing about these cases, however, is that since the inception of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court in the late 1700’s, it was taken more than two centuries for them to address the second issue that the founders addressed in the Bill of Rights. While, for decades, the issue has been constantly raised in litigation again and again by both gun ownership proponents and gun control advocates, the highest court in the land has only weighed in on the subject twice.
Regardless of what side you fall on in the gun control debate, the decision today is a win for the Constitution, which has been eroded by activist judges in many ways for years and years. Today’s Supreme Court, the Roberts Court, is now seemingly the last check on limited government intervention into the daily lives of Americans (as the Constitution would call for) at the federal level, as both the executive and legislative branches have run amuck in expanding the size and scope of the federal government.
While liberals may charge that the conservative justices who voted in the majority are hypocritical for ignoring state’s rights – in this case, the Illinois law that they effectively struck down – they should reread their Constitutions and take particular note of the Supremacy Clause of the Tenth Amendment, which mandates that all powers which are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the individual states. Since the Constitution explicitly addresses the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, it is a right that is indeed delegated to citizens of all states, as the majority correctly determined today.
This narrow 5-4 decision further underlines the importance of Supreme Court appointments, as we begin the confirmation hearings of its latest nominee – Solicitor General Elena Kagan – this week. A year ago, the gun control position of President Obama’s first selection, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was clear from her earlier judicial opinions. She clearly did not believe gun ownership was a fundamental right in American society – hence, her vote with the dissenters in today’s opinion.
It’s a little trickier to gauge Kagan’s opinion on such fundamental issues, since she does not have a judicial record for Court-watchers to review. Her answers to the questions she receives from her Republican critics on the Senate Judiciary Committee this week may give us some insight into where she would come down on particular issues, but, like many nominees that have preceded her in this process, she will probably be less than forthcoming in revealing many of her true views. More on that later in the week…
Comments