Some gun owners are applauding the SCOTUS decision on the Second Amendment today. Image from Flickr.

In the final decision of the Supreme Court of the United States this session, the Supreme Court position on gun control has been clarified. The ruling strikes down many city and state bans on handguns, though it does leave the door open for carefully worded legislation that restricts gun ownership. The McDonald vs. Chicago decision is a clarification to last year’s striking down of the Washington D.C. handgun ban.

The Supreme Court gun decision

The Supreme Court’s decision on gun ownership and the Second Amendment is the second in the last few years. McDonald vs. Chicago challenged Chicago’s very restrictive ban on individuals owning handguns. A few years ago, the Supreme Court gun ruling indicated that Washington D.C., a federal district, could not ban handgun ownership. This gun ruling clarified that the same standard applies to cities and states. Writing for the 5-4 majority, justice Samuel Alito stated that “self-defense is a basic right… individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment.”

Supreme Court leaves door open for gun legislation

While the Supreme court gun decision does make handgun bans unconstitutional, it leaves the door open for further legislation and litigation. The majority opinion restates the 2008 caveat that “recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In other words, cities, states and the federal government does still have the right to legislate and limit guns. Where exactly that right butts up against the Second Amendment is still to be determined.

Other Supreme Court decisions

On the last day of Justice John Paul Stevens’ 34-year service on the court, the Supreme Court rendered decisions on more than just guns. Mcdonald vs. Chicago is the most high-profile constitutional rights case, but several others were decided. First, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was ruled unconstitutional. This is a board that was designed in 2002 to audit public companies, in response to the failure of Enron and WorldCon. The fix for this unconstitutionality, however, is simple; the Securities and Exchange Commission must be given more control. The court also rendered decisions in Bilski v. Kappos, which denied a patent for a strategy in hedging financial risk. Finally, the court agreed that public universities do not have to recognize student groups that discriminate.

“Does everyone have the right to carry firearms in public?” asks Supreme Court

Justices are questioning whether the right to bear arms should extend beyond the home for all Americans, not simply those in states with more open gun laws. The Constitution grants the right to bear arms, but dissenting justices are seeking to define what “reasonable firearm regulations” should mean. Gun advocates are eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment going forward. A test to determine reasonable regulations will be a significant piece of that puzzle.

Federal law versus state law

Justice John Paul Stevens has wondered whether the Supreme Court turning down an outright ban on handguns in 2008 opened the door to grant individuals the right to carry guns in the streets. According to Reuters, Justice Stephen Breyer asked civil rights attorney Alan Gura (who represents four Chicago-area residents and two gun rights groups) how Chicago’s existing anti-handgun legislation (which the city claims saves hundreds of lives) should be pitted against the move toward greater gun freedom.

What’s the NRA’s stance?

NRA representative Paul Clement made the argument that matters would be simpler if federal and state laws on handguns were the same. This could of course renew the concern of those parties who have lamented the general loss of state’s rights in favor of federal law since the aftermath of the Civil War. But without running too far afield here, the arguments in favor of laws “within the tradition” that Illinois claims has saved lives simply won’t go away.

“It’s either there or not”

Justice Antonin Scalia said that in proceedings, which means that a desire to interpret the Second Amendment quite literally exists in the Supreme Court. Justice John Roberts agrees, but made the distinction that “the political process which could allow some regulation or restrictions” should remain in place. That likely means background checks, waiting periods and the like, but I’m no expert. Reuters points out that the 2008 ruling did not make it easier for felons or the mentally ill from obtaining handguns, however; neither did it make bringing guns into schools and government buildings acceptable. It seems clear that any new stance on a citizen’s right to bear a handgun outside the home will not overlook such issues.

Gun control will continue to be a divisive issue in society

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides. It sounds to me that efforts are being made to maintain reasonable boundaries. In spite of that, the issue of guns in public should always be treated with proper caution. Opening up gun laws would be considered a real pay day by the gun lobby, but the public safety must always be the primary concern. Remember, Americans do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Public safety makes that possible for each of us.

Related Video: