Did An Activist Supreme Court Punt On Heller?

This weeks 5-4 Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia vs. Heller was widely touted as a landmark ruling. The court settled, finally, the big question; did the Second Amendment provide for private ownership of guns or did the Founding Fathers intend only to guarantee the right to arm militias?

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's arch-conservative, wrote in the majority opinion.

While the decision may have addressed the question of private ownership and "absolute prohibitions" like the District of Columbia statute, it raises new questions about what restrictions are reasonable.

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Scalia wrote.

Gun-control advocates say the ruling's focus on gun bans safeguards reasonable gun restrictions from the flurry of litigation it will undoubtedly trigger. "The Court's decision indicated regulation of guns, as opposed to the banning of handguns, is entirely permissible," says Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

It came as no surprise that by the end of the week the NRA had already filed suits against gun ban statutes in the cities of Chicago and San Francisco.

While the Court's decision addresses bans on firearms, it didn't address what might be considered reasonable regulation of those firearms. Some jurisdictions have banned a specific type of firearm, like assault weapons or fully automatic weapons. The Court's Heller ruling might allow the challenging of those statues.

It's also worth noting this was a close decision by the Court. Four of the justices dissented and Justice Stevens was particularly critical of the majority:

In one of two dissenting opinions, Justice John Paul Stevens called Scalia's argument "strained and unpersuasive." He also blistered the majority for its expansive reading of the Amendment's "ambiguous" text. "Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia," Stevens wrote. "The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding."

The best case is now that the whole militia/individual question is resolved and there are finally assurances that private ownership is sanctioned, some of the steam may be taken out of the debate and reasonable discussions about how guns can be kept from those individuals we all agree have absolutely no business owning a gun.

Original here