June 26, 2008

HandGuns

I haven’t read the decision yet and, as I am about to spend the next 7 hours in a practice MBE exam, I probably won’t read it until tonight. Still, from what little I have gleaned from the press, I don’t think this was a horrible decision.

The read I have is that the Court ruled complete prohibitions on handguns are not okay, but left room for reasonable restrictions.

If that’s the case, I’m fine with it.

The focus, of course, will be how broad or narrow the room for ‘restriction’ would be, and the language they used to determine the holding.

Update: I lied.

Here’s what I like and don’t like about the opinion:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake anexhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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.26

We also recognize another important limitation on theright to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

I thought the opinion itself, while technically good, was a little too ‘look how dumb the dissenters are’, especially towards Stevens. Scalia seemed to delight in needling Stevens, stopping just short of calling him stupid (“Wrongheaded”, I believe was the polite term).

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 07:54 AM || Link to me || More Thoughts (0) || Track this post (0) || Category:: Law, Just Left On