WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appeared willing Tuesday to say that the U.S. Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.
At the very least, Tuesday's argument suggested that courts could be very busy in the years ahead determining precisely which gun laws are allowed under the Constitution's Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms," and which must be stricken.
The court heard arguments in a case that challenges handgun bans in the Chicago area by asking the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision striking down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.
The biggest questions before the court seemed to be how, rather than whether, to issue such a ruling and whether some regulation of firearms could survive. On the latter point, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority opinion he wrote in the 2008 case "said as much."
The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," said Chief Justice John Roberts, who was in the majority in 2008.
James Feldman, a Washington-based lawyer representing Chicago, urged the court to reject the challenges to the gun laws in Chicago and a suburb. Handguns have been banned in those two places for nearly 30 years. The court has held that most of the rest of the Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to state and local laws. But Feldman said the Second Amendment should be treated differently because guns are different. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," he said. But Feldman ran into difficulty with some of the five justices who formed the majority in 2008. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined Scalia's opinion two years ago, said it seemed to him that Feldman was arguing that the court got it wrong two years ago.
Kennedy said other constitutional provisions have been applied, or "incorporated," against the states without stripping them of the authority to impose reasonable regulations. "Why can't we do the same thing with firearms?" he asked.
Of the other two justices in the 2008 majority, Justice Samuel Alito also appeared to agree that the Second Amendment should be extended to state and local laws and Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing, as is his custom during argument.
Tuesday's statements from the court also left little doubt that it would not break new ground in how it might apply the Second Amendment to states and cities.
No news is good news?
8 comments:
IF they do send broad new de-regulations out there, loosening up gun ownership, what do you suppose the cost of guns and ammo go to?
Hell, I may buy guns and ammunition NOW as a speculation in the gun futures kinda market.
The price will go down as new markets open, so will competition amongst gun shops. However, getting in early on teaching shooting, gun safety, opening ranges, etc. might be the way to go.
You're right bill, it'll drive the prices down. But if that does happen, there is one regulation i would like to see implemented, and that is "mandatory" saftey classes and supervised firing practice.
I agree that overall, prices will go down. But initially, with new markets open today, and yesterdays supply on hand, the prices won't the prices go up?
That's increased demand with a finite supply.
Temporarily the supply of guns and ammo can't change. Even if the producers have a half million guns of all types and a billion rounds of ammunition in warehouses, there's a lag getting them to the buyer. During the lag, prices will go up.
I doubt it Steve. There's no shortage of guns that i'm aware of, and the ammo shortage, which you were kind enough to help me with, seems to be over now. Less regulation will mean more people getting into the business, which means lower prices. The one roadblock i can see is that selling guns requires an FFL, (Federal Firearms License for those who don't know) and they're now "very" difficult to get.
I also don't think that people will run to the stores to purchase guns and ammo in huge droves. Just the fact that criminals will see an increase in folks defending themselves and their property should have thes crooks think twice about robbing anyone. Most people who want guns already have them. I do think gun use, shooting and safety should be taught in schools as a mandatory course
Along with cunnilingus.
depends on the teacher and classmates
Post a Comment