Everyone is wondering, and the truth is, we don't know. We are in the embryonic stages of constitutional analysis, since it's only been four and a half years since the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms. In the time since then, the Court has only spoken to the Second Amendment once more, and that case did not allow for further elaboration of what the Second Amendment right is. As you'll see, there is a lot of constitutional ground in which gun control advocates can clearly legislate with the blessing of even the most conservative of justices. So what did the Court say in its first elaboration on the clause since the 1939 Miller decision? Justice Scalia penned the majority opinion in Heller, and its key conclusions are as follows. First, that the Second Amendment was historically understood to include the right to bear arms for immediate self-defense in the home, and that right includes handguns:
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid....However, even Justice Scalia and the four conservative Justices who signed onto his opinion recognized that said right was not absolute. Join me below the orange gnocchi:
No comments:
Post a Comment