Recently at Reason.tv: The High Stakes of the DC Gun Case
June 26, 2008, 8:30am
Later today, the U.S. Supreme Court will announce its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the first major Court case about gun rights to be considered since the late 1930s. In the mid-1970s, the District of Columbia passed draconian gun-control legislation that effectively made it impossible for residents to legally own guns. Alan Gura is the lead attorney for seven plaintiffs who want to own guns for self-protection and other reasons. Gura and his associates have challenged the constitutionality of D.C.'s gun laws.
At the center of the case is whether the judiciary will recognize that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to own guns, a point conceded by virtually all historians and legal experts.
Gura recently sat down with reason.tv's Nick Gillespie to explain the high stakes of one of the most important and highly anticipated court cases in recent memory.
This nine-minute interview was shot and edited by reason.tv's Dan Hayes.
Click below to watch.
Go here to add this interview to your website and for more supporting materials.
John | June 26, 2008, 10:25am | #
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
From the summary at the front of the opinion
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
