The Consequences of DC vs Heller to the 2nd Amendment and PMC

In the case of DC vs Heller by the time this article was written much was said abut what the second amendment means in terms of a collective right or an individual one, specifically if DC can ban an entire class of firearms, the handgun.

If you have not listened to DC vs Heller yet or read the transcript I HIGHLY encouraged you to do so to see why I am coming to the conclusions I am regarding quite possibly the most important case in the history of the 2nd Amendment.

Based on the questions USSC Justices were asking the lawyers in DC vs Heller, they seemed very hostile to the idea the 2nd Amendment was to be interpreted any other way than in INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Walter E. Dillinger argued the District's side before the Supreme Court, Heller was represented by Alen Gura and the US Dept. of Justice was represented by Solicitor General Paul D Clement.

Up until this point the Bush Administration was perceived as pro – gun, Bush did some strategic politicking to ensure the death of the AWB by not allowing the renewal bill to reach is desk. Due to a lower court decision that would have made nearly all gun control laws illegal, how?

The modern day term for arm(s) is firearm(s) Webster defines a firearms as “a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms.” That definition is to say the least fairly bawd, it covers derringers to the 16” guns on a Missouri class battleship and everything in between.

Since the “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” statement, that interpretation is what caused the Bush administration to shit itself. Consequently the NFA, GCA 68, and The Hughes amendment of FOPA (the Hughes amendment bans civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986 ).

The Bush administration and US Dept. of Justice and Solicitor General Paul D Clement, believes in a “reasonable restriction” policy. The following is taken from p.21-22 of the DOJ Brief-

Friend of the Court Brief

1. Congress Has Authority To Prohibit Particular Types Of Firearms, Such As Machine guns:

a. While the court of appeals correctly recognized that the Second Amendment both secures individual rights and allows “reasonable restrictions” (Pet. App.51a), it appears to have adopted a categorical test.

The court of appeals concluded that, “once it is determined" that handguns are ‘Arms’ referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them.” Pet. App. 53a.

Such a categorical approach would cast doubt on the constitutionality of the current federal machine gun ban, as well as on Congress’s general authority to protect the public safety by identifying and proscribing particularly dangerous weapons. See p. 2, supra.

Indeed, the court’s unqualified determination that “handguns are ‘Arms,’ ” Pet. App. 53a; see id. At 51a, does not exclude certain automatic weapons covered. by 18 U.S.C. 922(o) that fall within the D.C.-law definition of “pistol.”

And because automatic rifles like the M-16 are now standard-issue military weapons for rank and- file soldiers, the court’s reference to the “lineal descendant[s]” of the weapons used in Founding-era militia operations, see Pet. App. 51a, on its face would cover machine guns and other firearms that represent vast technological improvements over the “Arms” available in 1791. See ibid.

b.The text and history of the Second Amendment strongly indicate that the Amendment does not categorically foreclose legislative prohibitions on particular categories of “Arms.” The question remains whether the restriction is reasonable.

The Right protected by the Second Amendment is a right to “keep and bear Arms,” not a right to possess any specific type of firearm. A ban on a type or class of firearms, such as machine guns, is not unconstitutional just because it is categorical.

A number of factors—including whether a particular kind of firearm is commonly possessed, poses specific dangers, or has unique uses, as well as the availability of functional alternatives—are relevant to the constitutional analysis.

Here is the problem I have with this, the term “reasonable restriction” is a relative term, it does not define anything, and can very easily change from DOJ administration to administration. President Clinton believed that the 94 AWB was “reasonable” and I am sure Hillary and Obama would find HR 1022 reasonable (this bill would virtually ban all semi – auto’s and not allow them to be legally transferred or sold.)

In the Court Room it appeared that the biggest fans of the 2nd Amendment were the Justices themselves. Even Heller’s lawyer conceded that the government has a right to ban guns ie. “assault weapons” and machine guns, just not handguns but this is what the justices had to say and this is what has given me just a ray of hope that our government might just work.

James Corder writes specifically on DC vs Heller and many other case laws as they pertain to weapons.

Leave DC vs Heller for James Corder