Second Amendment’s Reach a Lingering Issue in Gun Case
The Supreme Court’s wording in framing the Second Amendment issue in a Washington, D.C., gun case doesn’t mention one of the issues before it—whether the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia.
When the court accepted the case yesterday, it put the issue this way: Do the provisions of a Washington, D.C., statute regulating gun possession “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
The New York Times writes that the use of the phrase “state-regulated militia” is “somewhat curious.” Lawyers for the district argue that it is not a state and the amendment does not apply to legislation enacted there.
Even though the court did not mention the issue of whether the amendment covers the district, it would have to be answered in the affirmative if the court goes on to decide whether the Second Amendment covers an individual right to bear arms, SCOTUSblog says.
A related issue is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states, in addition to the federal government. That issue would remain, even if the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment applies in the District, the lawyer for the plaintiff challenging the gun regulations, Robert Levy, writes for the Baltimore Sun.
The court below, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, struck down the gun ban last spring, finding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. But a dissenter argued the Second Amendment may not apply to the district, Law.com reported in an earlier article.
The dissenter said the drafters of the Second Amendment intended to protect states from oppression by a standing federal army. Since D.C. is a federal entity, it wouldn’t make sense that it needed protection from federal action.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller.
