What Supreme Court 'victories' really mean for gun rights

October 9, 12:14 PMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

34 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

     Oleg Volk photo

---

Related Articles

• Supreme Court to decide 2nd Amendment incorporation issue
• More about incorporation
• DC City Council enables residents’ easy access to mail order handgun carry permits 101
• How DC residents can buy guns without registration 101

I have written in the past about the possibility of incorporation of the Second Amendment, and again more recently, in light of the Supreme Court's agreement to settle the incorporation question (see links at right, below the picture).  Most analysts seem to expect that SCOTUS will indeed rule that the Second Amendment is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, and will thus apply to state and local governments, as well as at the federal level.

That certainly sounds good for gun rights, but is it, really?  The most recent, and arguably most relevant, Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Second Amendment is, of course, the Heller decision from last June.  I have mentioned before that Heller is far from the unmixed blessing that some of the more optimistic of gun owners perceive it to be, but I don't think I have really explained the reasoning that brings me to that conclusion.

A recent FOX News segment about what is involved in a D.C. resident's legal purchase of a handgun provides a useful illustration of what was "won" in Heller.  NewsBusters helpfully provides a transcript--here are some of the requirements.

• A trip to the police station to pick up the initial paperwork.
• A five hour course covering law, safety, and shooting on a range.  The FOX segment mentioned James Wiggins as one of the 30 instructors licensed to teach the course--this article states that the cost of the course Mr. Wiggins offers is $185.
• The prospective buyer can then go shopping--but not in D.C., because there are no gun shops there.  The chosen gun must come from an approved "roster" of guns deemed "safe" enough for D.C. residents.  It took the threat of legal action on the part of the Second Amendment Foundation to force D.C. to loosen the roster to the point that guns could no longer be denied on the basis of their color.
• Then, it's time for the FBI background check
• Now, back to the police department, for a 20 question exam, and fingerprinting
• A ten day waiting period (what--not ten years?)
• Then, yet another trip to the police department, to pick up the stamped paperwork
• Finally, you can have your gun, but you can't just go the gun shop where you purchased it--it has to be transferred through the one Federal Firearms Licensee in Washington D.C. who is willing to do the transfers, who meets clients by appointment only, and charges $125 for a transfer.
• Then, yet another trip to the police department, for the "ballistics test"
• Don't forget the other costs (pdf file):
  Application  $13
  Ballistics Test  $12
  Fingerprinting / FBI Background Check  $35
  Total  $60
  
  This is getting pricey: $185 for training, $60 to various government agencies, $125 for the transfer--not to mention the gun, the ammunition, cleaning supplies, and all the driving involved.  The poor's right to self-defense is apparently not a priority in D.C.

And I have only scratched the surface of D.C.'s gun laws.  Those laws, for example, include a complete prohibition on carrying a firearm outside the home, whether concealed or openly, an expansive ban of so-called "assault weapons," etc.

There are various attempts afoot (SAF, for example, is suing for right to carry) to scrape away at the layer upon layer of infringements in D.C. on that which shall not be infringed, some of which might eventually reach the Supreme Court.  As of now, though, all these draconian restrictions are considered permissible under Heller.

This provides the forcible citizen disarmament lobby with a blueprint for exactly what they can get away with, and still be ruled to be in compliance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment.  Even when they are defeated on a given point, they merely have to back up an inch, and say, "well, we can still do that," after which they have to be challenged all over again--with no guarantee of victory at any step of the way.

This, in turn, affords politicians and candidates with Second Amendment "cover"--they can say "I support the Second Amendment," and even mean it, at least in terms of supporting whatever SCOTUS deigns to allow it to mean--while pushing for everything short of an outright gun ban.

For those who count Heller as a "victory," I would suggest setting one's ambitions a bit higher.