At a vigil for the latest victims of a mass shooting, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican & a supporter of gun rights, was offering his condolences when the crowd began to chant, “Do something!” It is a desperate mantra being repeated across the country. Do something, anything, to end our continual cycle of boom & bust. Mass shootings are followed by scenes of sorrowful politicians, which are then followed by minimal actions. Worse yet, politicians routinely propose reforms they know will not pass constitutional review, creating the appearance of “doing something” when, in reality, they do little beyond giving cover.

This latest bloodshed has politicians once again pledging action. Many of these politicians opposed the decision of the Supreme Court in 2008 in District of Columbia versus Dick Anthony Heller, establishing that the right to bear arms is an individual right under the Second Amendment. The court has repeatedly reaffirmed that landmark decision. In 2010, the court ruled that this constitutional right applied to the states as it does to the federal government since it is one of those “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” Just two years ago, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision & held that this right is not confined to firearms “in existence at the time of the founding” but to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms” including, in that specific case, stun guns.

Despite these & other rulings by the federal courts, politicians still act as if they are still operating before Heller in which any rational gun control is presumptively constitutional. The legal results are predictable. New York City mayor & Democratic candidate Bill De Blasio complained in the aftermath of the recent shootings, “It feels like we are screaming into a void.” It feels that way because we are, & that void is a space that no longer exists for many measures after Heller. As an individual right, there is a higher showing required from both state & federal governments, a standard that is unlikely to be met in many proposed gun regulations.

For example, many politicians are pledging again to remove all “assault style weapons” such as the AR-15. However, such limits must meet a standard that requires a narrowly tailored law advancing a compelling state interest. While a ban on AR-15s sounds compelling, it breaks down under closer review. The AR-15 & other weapons in its class use an intermediate cartridge that actually is less powerful than that used in a rifle. These weapons are often twice as powerful as a handgun but not nearly as powerful as a rifle. Moreover, guns like the AR-15 are popular because they are modular & allow for different grips & barrels.

A law cannot ban the look of a rifle. It must focus on the inherent power of the weapon, which may prove less compelling for some justices. Such a ban would have to pass muster with Neil Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh, the newest members of the Supreme Court. Both justices are viewed as supporting gun rights under Heller, & Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a 2011 case saying that an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional.

The road ahead may therefore prove more difficult for gun control. A federal judge in San Diego shot down the California law banning high capacity ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds. While the ruling could now be reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the decision repeatedly hit on what the court felt was an arbitrary ban given the common use of such magazines. The court noted that the Glock pistol “is designed for, & typically sold with, a 17 round magazine,” as is true of a wide assortment of other such popular weapons. Moreover, banning high capacity magazines will not likely have a transformative effect. It is relatively easy & fast to swap out magazines on a weapon. This & other such cases are currently working their way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is already poised to rule in a critical gun rights case, a decision that will come a decade after its last major decision in the area, with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association versus City of New York. This will once again test the mettle of the Second Amendment right & could result in a substantial blow to an array of laws passed across the country in the wake of Heller.....

Continued

Wow the formatting hurts my eyes.

Brian Ross wrote on May 1^st, 2020 at 9:25pm:



How about a little honesty, what difference do our gun laws have to do with you? I don't care what laws you live under, I know it has nothing to do with saving lives.
You are just having fun, stirring up people you disagree with. I find it amusing that you need to ask your government permission to buy Ralphies red rider BB gun. They need to make sure you will not shoot your eye out!

there is zero dispute as to the facts, decreased gun ownership results in decreased death from firearms. Thats a fact Jack!