Second Amendment Forecasting

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the first second amendment case since 1939. The 1939 case, perhaps not surprisingly, is read as ambiguous, though certainly embracing the ‘well regulated Militia’ language.

My guess is, by the way, the Court will straddle the issue: Embracing the individual right to bear arms, but recognizing the right of the states or congress to impose reasonable restrictions on that right (much like there have been restrictions placed on the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the other clauses of the bill of rights). There will probably be some three part test, to determine the ‘reasonableness’ of the regulation which, itself, will be the focus of lawsuits for years to come?

Why?

Let’s start with the individual right portion. Embracing the individual right view of the second amendment is the least radical approach. Ignoring the make-up of the court for a moment – our society has long embraced the individual’s right to bear arms and for the court suddenly to come in and say ‘Ummm, no. The state holds that right and can do what it likes’, is very unlikely. That would be the only way to embrace the ‘militia’ view of the constitution. You can’t very well say in one breath the second amendment grants power to the states and then, in the next, say but that power is limited by the people.

However, there is no possible way that the Court will simply say ‘It’s and individual right and can’t be restricted’. The logical extension of such a proclamation would make things like rocket-launchers and machine guns fair game for those who want to own them.

Which means, the outright ban on handguns will be tossed, in my opinion. However, I have a feeling the Court will leave room for regulation such as to limit the ownership of handguns.