ILNews

SCOTUS makes history, shoots down gun ban

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Answering a 217-year-old constitutional question, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic ruling this morning that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to have a gun in his or her home.

The ideologically split 5-4 decision in District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller, No. 07-290, struck down a city handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and defined the scope of the gun rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution for the 21st century.

Specific to this case, the court affirmed a Circuit Court ruling striking down the city's 1976 law banning handguns and allowing only disassembled or locked rifles and shotguns. Heller, a security guard, challenged the law after police refused to issue a license allowing him to keep a handgun in his home for protection.

In a cumulative 157-page decision that included two dissenting opinions, the court dissected the Second Amendment's scope for the first time since 1939, and wrote a court document laced with many historic references, legal analysis, and caselaw citations.

The court analyzed the language that says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This ruling is the first time in almost seven decades the court has considered the Second Amendment's scope, though the ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939), didn't directly deal with this interpretation of the language - meaning it's the first time since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 that the court has taken on this monumental task.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that - despite times and gun varieties changing since 1791 and how the court is aware of the handgun violence problems that exist - the Second Amendment applies to modern society.

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," he wrote in the 64-page majority opinion. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Majority justices rejected arguments that the Second Amendment applied only to those arms that existed during the 18th century, pointing to caselaw on how the First and 14th Amendments also apply respectively to modern forms of communications and search methods. It applies to "all instruments that constitute bearable arms" and doesn't just apply to those participating in structured military organizations, the court wrote.

But the court wrote that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," and used that to emphasize that it isn't casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, and that laws putting conditions on gun sales and barring guns from schools or government buildings still apply.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented in their own opinions, noting that the majority limited state legislators from regulating gun control and no evidence outside of "historical narratives" leads to the conclusion reached by the majority that the constitution's framers intended to limit that action.

"I can find no legal basis for launching the courts on such a formidable and potentially dangerous a mission," Justice Breyer wrote, referring to the decision's potential to throw into doubt gun laws across the nation. "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Sixty-seven amici briefs were filed in the case, with 47 in support of Heller's Second Amendment right and 20 wanting a reversal to scale back the scope. Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter is one of 31 state attorneys general who signed an amicus brief in support of the individual right, arguing that the Second Amendment applies to the rights of individuals, not states. Another brief from Congress recognized 250 House of Representative members and 55 Senators who supported Heller, including five of nine Indiana representatives but no Hoosier senators. Those included are: Representatives Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Joe Donnelly, Michael Pence, and Mark Souder.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT