Chapter 9 Flashcards
(5 cards)
2 opinions on gun rights
- Pro gun control-look at first half of 2nd am. meaning a collective right of states to arm militias NOT individual right. Belief that passed to inhibit federal govt infringing on state militias
- Pro gun-2nd half & looks at individual right to keep and bear arms. Mentioning militias does not inhibit rights of people
1st case about gun regulation
US vs. Miller (1939)-Justices questioned if the right to keep and bear arms was a personal liberty or only a collective right tied to the need for state militias.
Facts: Miller and Layton were insignificant career criminals and indicted for transporting from OK to AR an unregistered sawed off shotgun that still had a tax on it. Defendants challenged the charges saying the NFA (which both reasons illegal under) was unconstitutional.
Opinion: Weapon can’t be used for militia or defense so NFA held legal
Gun Control-District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008)-Precedent, Facts
Precedent: Guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms and reject collective right interpretation of 2nd-however, there are still restrictions (like prohibiting certain citizens)
Facts: in ‘76 DC passed very restrictive gun control ordinances (to combat high levels of gun-related crimes), which banned private possession of handguns. Rifles and shotguns could be owned if they were registered, disassembled and kept unloaded. Rarely individuals could get permission to carry a handgun. Heller was a security officer who had been granted a license to carry a handgun when working at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for the gun for self-defense but was refused, so he sued. Levy ( an attorney) chose Heller to combat DC’s laws.
Gun Control-District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008)-Question & Opinion
Question: Does DC’s law banning handgun ownership violate the 2nd am.?
Opinion:
Majority (Scalia): The 1st part of 2nd am serves to contextualize right to gun ownership. Since militia in colonial america was not indicative of the people if we only view as the militia can have guns we are wrong. Right to keep and bear arms (aka carry weapons). However, as in Miller we can have protections on whom (aka felons and mentally ill) cannot have guns and when they cannot be carried (schools, etc.). Guns are also the most popular tool for self defense and prohibition is invalid & requirement to be unloaded in the home is illegal.
Dissent (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer): Framers did not intend for self defense or individual usage. It is to protect state sovereignty and to keep a military. Miller presents military uses, but nonmilitary illegal because of possible misuse
Dissent (Breyer, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg): 2nd am protection isn’t absolute and the govt is allowed to regulate its interest
After Heller
Because Heller took place in DC, states are still able to regulate guns; in 2010 McDonald vs. City of Chicago, Illinois (2010). This case had a village in Illinois ban private ownership of handguns-this was overturned in the SC
