Supreme Court Rules on gun control in Second Amendment case
Print
Email
The Supreme Court has clarified their ruling on the constitutionality of gun control laws. The ruling strikes down numerous city and state bans on handguns, though it does leave the door open for carefully worded legislation that restricts gun ownership. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a law banning handguns in Washington D.C. – and McDonald v. Chicago clarifies that ruling.
Article resource: Supreme Court Rules on gun control in Second Amendment case
SCOTUS rules on gun ownership
The recent decision about gun ownership is the second in the last 3 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 second ruling confirms that the exact same standard applies to states and cities. The 5-4 majority ruling stated that that "self-defense is a basic right... individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment."
Some gun legislation could be allowed
Legislation that limits the ownership of handguns could still, under some situations, be considered constitutional. The original 2008 ruling was repeated when the majority decision stated "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 no matter what purpose." In other words, cities, states and the federal government does nevertheless have the right to legislate and limit guns. The spot where the right to own guns supersedes the right of government to limit guns has nevertheless not been made clear.
Other Supreme Court decisions
The Supreme Court handed down multiple decisions today. The SCOTUS declared that the Public Business Accounting Board is unconstitutional in its current incarnation. In 2002, this board was re-created to respond to the failure of Enron. The fix for this unconstitutionality, nevertheless, is simple; the Securities and Exchange Commission must be given more control. Strategies for limiting risk can't be patented, according to the decision in Bilski v. Kappos.
