In McDonald v. Chicago case, another Supreme Court landmark ruling on guns?
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court hears arguments in one of the most consequential cases of its term: Must Chicago and other locales drop their ban on handguns just as the justices forced Washington, D.C., to do two years ago?
If the high court decides yes, then state and local gun regulations across the nation could be shot full of holes. That鈥檚 why it鈥檚 so important for the justices to clarify not only where the 鈥渞ight to keep and bear arms鈥� applies jurisdictionally, but how fundamental a right it is.
Is the Second Amendment right akin to First Amendment rights to free speech and the free practice of religion, which carry few restrictions? Or is it somehow a lesser right, subject to greater regulation?
This question is related to the case at hand 鈥� McDonald v. the City of Chicago 鈥� but it is not the issue immediately before the justices. What the plaintiff in the Chicago case wants to know is whether people living outside federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C., also have the individual right to own a gun for self-defense.
In the 2008 landmark case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, the justices ruled for the first time that gun ownership is an individual right 鈥� not just a right for militias. They overthrew Washington鈥檚 handgun ban, which was similar to Chicago鈥檚, and allowed Richard Heller to have a gun in his home for self-defense. But the justices didn鈥檛 say whether this right extends beyond federal jurisdictions. Gun-rights supporters maintain that gun rights, like others in the Bill of Rights, must extend to the states.
Indeed, over the years the Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Rights to the states. But over a century ago, the high court held the Second Amendment as applying only to the federal government. Will it now rule otherwise, imperiling gun regulations across the land?
Doing so would raise the how-much-of-a-right question, which translates into a how-much-regulation question.
The National Rifle Association and its supporters maintain that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, like free speech. Viewed through their scopes, 鈥渟hall not be infringed鈥� means no restrictions. For years, they鈥檝e steadily pushed against infringements 鈥� successfully pressuring Congress in 2004 not to renew the assault weapons ban, and convincing states to pass conceal-and-carry laws (all but two allow it). As of Feb. 22, licensed gun owners may also take firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges (unless a state law says otherwise).
Despite aggressive efforts, however, the gun lobby has not been able to get very far in extending conceal-and-carry laws to America鈥檚 taverns and college campuses. The resistance from the states is reasonable and illustrates the case for gun regulation. Alcohol and lethal weapons such as guns pose too much of a danger to society when mixed, and they shouldn鈥檛 be. And police worry that if students arm themselves, law enforcement won鈥檛 be able to tell the difference between students on a rampage or students trying to defend themselves.
Firearms must be treated differently from free speech. Slinging guns is not the same as slinging slurs. Guns can kill a person, while any child can quote that 鈥渟ticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me鈥� (except for yelling 鈥淔ire!鈥� in a crowded theater, for which there is a restriction). In America, an average 300 people are shot or killed with a gun every day, including accidents. That doesn鈥檛 happen with speech.
In the Heller case, the justices in the majority recognized that gun rights are not unlimited rights. 鈥淣othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing 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,鈥� said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Even so, the Supreme Court never announced exactly what standard of review courts should apply in gun cases. A 鈥渞easonableness鈥� standard would give states and localities the flexibility they need to balance the right to self defense with the public鈥檚 right to safety.
Should the justices strike down Chicago鈥檚 handgun ban as unconstitutional, the city will still need guidance on how far it can go to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to ensure responsible use of guns.
