Posted on 06/29/2008 2:57:50 PM PDT by neverdem
The Second Amendment now applies in the nation's capital. What about the states?
For the past 32 years, law-abiding residents of Washington, D.C. have been at the mercy of one of America's most unforgiving gun control laws: a total ban on the possession of handguns in the home, as well as strict trigger lock and disassembly requirements for rifles and shotguns. Taken together, these restrictions have left Washingtonians unable to mount any sort of meaningful defense of themselves, their families, and their homes from armed intruders.
But things changed on Thursday. In a landmark 5-4 decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that D.C.'s gun ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment since it deprived individuals of their right "to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense." In a forceful, tightly argued opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the amendment protects an essential individual right, one that is "unconnected with service in a militia."
One major thing the decision didn't do, however, was directly address a crucial question going forward: whether the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is applicable against the states as well as the federal government (which administers Washington, D.C.). Under what's known as the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court has gradually ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applies many of the protections contained in the Bill of Rights against infringement by state and local governments. The Second Amendment, however, has been glaringly absent from this process. Did Heller change that, too?
Technically no. But since the Court wasn't asked to settle that matter, the fact that it didn't do so is no cause for alarm. In fact, the decision offers cause for some real hope. Justice Scalia's extensive reliance on historical sources and scholarship sends a very promising signal to those who'd like to see the Second Amendment enforced against the states. If history matters, and Heller certainly says that it does, then strong evidence for incorporation is likely to carry real weight in future litigation.
So let's consider the origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As legal historian Michael Kent Curtis makes clear in his definitive book, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, the radical Republicans who drafted and then spearheaded the 1868 ratification of the amendment clearly intended it to apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states.
In short, these legislators, most of whom had been active in the anti-slavery and abolitionist movements, wanted to secure the life, liberty, and property of the recently freed slaves and their white allies in the former Confederate states. This quite obviously and quite necessarily included the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense. Ohio Rep. John Bingham, for instance, the author of the Fourteenth Amendment's crucial first section, which was quoted above, declared that "the privileges and immunities" it refers to "are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution." Similarly, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, who presented the amendment to the Senate, described its object as "to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees," including "the right to keep and to bear arms." For a state judge following the methodology laid out in Heller, such information could prove very persuasive.
In modern-day Chicago, meanwhile, gun rights activists have already seized the initiative. Within hours of Heller's announcement, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the city's draconian handgun ban, a law that has deprived Chicagoans of the right to self-defense for the past quarter of a century. Benna Solomon, deputy corporation council for the city, responded by telling the Chicago Tribune that "the 2nd Amendment does not apply to state and local government," adding: "We are prepared to aggressively litigate this issue and defend this ordinance."
Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully argued Heller before the Court, and who is now representing the plaintiffs in the Chicago case, is more than ready. As he told reason this week, "The next step is obviously 14th Amendment incorporation. I'm looking forward to leading that fight."
Damon W. Root is an associate editor of reason.
The Second does NOT apply to DC. Not even now. DC is going to stonewall. You still have to register, and you still can’t own a semi-auto pistol. This is going to be like George Wallace at the schoolhouse door in Alabama. We must press, we MUST embarrass these jerks into submission. The Constitution means the same thing in DC as in Chicago as in NYC as in Dallas, etc.
I just hope that the McCain campaign has the good sense to capitalize on this decision and promise more gun favoring judges on the SC.
Make it a big issue...
“This is going to be like George Wallace at the schoolhouse door in Alabama.”
In my opinion, even though he was morally wrong, Wallace was correct in his defense of States Rights and Eisenhower was wrong and violated the Constitution. Either we have States Rights or we don’t. Situational “ethics” doesn’t make good Constitutional Law regardless of the cause.
Yep. Hussein’s already screwed the pooch on this one. He can go against 70+% of Americans or he can flip flop. If he does flip we’ve got him on trust. It’s a good day to be an American. Heh.
Can’t agree with you. States have powers, not rights. And the State of Alabama has no power to defy a Federal Court order when it comes to enforcement of Federal law. The 14th Amendment incorporated the first 8 rights from the BOR and it should have been that way since Reconstruction. Too bad the North backslid on its promise to the newly freed slaves.
Right you are. According to the DC published info on registration, they will implement the "keep" part of "keep and bear" arms for some arms (not pistols), but they will not implement the "bear" part.
States have rights, in regard to the federal government. (plain reading of the 14th).
/johnny
/johnny
I think it was Ike and Faubus of Arkansas then Wallace and Kennedy. Eecellent use of federal power to enforce USSC rulings and human rights.
/johnny
We don't. That was established in April 1865, I'm sorry to say.
Frankly, if I lived in DC and wanted a gun, I’d buy a gun. I wouldn’t tell the facists running the local government about my purchase though.
SCOTUS only upheld the right to keep arms, not the right to bear arms. For the 2nd to be really secure, we need to get Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms (except when hunting or in incorporated areas of counties that haven’t banned carry). overturned.
As I am fond of pointing out, so long as there is an untrammeled right to open carry, a states may ban concealed carry; likewise so long as there is an untrammeled right to concealed carry, a state may ban open carry. Illinois bans both, plainly a violation of the 2nd Amendment as applied to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th.
Art 6. Para 2.
"laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding".
The "incorporation doctrine" is a myth.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
I agree with the 14th. but I still believe that those powers not given to the Federal Government still reside with the People and the States. So yes I believe in States Rights and don’t see Civil War as changing the Constitutionality of many Federal actions.
I agree with you in theory; it seems, however, that since the War Between the States the federal government has taken control of many state and local issue that the Founders certainly did not intend, and state sovreignity has been eroded markedly.
When the states are holding other humans as slaves or more recently setting up a class system based upon race, hard to agree they, the states, have a right to do that. How does a state have the right to ignore or take away the human rights of their residents?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.