Decision might prohibit gun bans
>>Print ViewPublication Date: 03/09/2010
sponsored by
The Supreme Court’s deliberation over a Chicago case might change the way the Constitution applies to state and local firearm bans.
Though the case being deliberated is pressing the issue, the discussion started with another recent case, said Yvonne Pitts, assistant professor of history.
In Washington D.C., laws prohibited the personal possession of firearms. The constitutionality of that ban was questioned in a Supreme Court case resulting in the repealing of the ban, Pitts said. So, the Supreme Court made the distinction that, on the federal level, the Second Amendment protects the private right to bear arms.
Another case, McDonald v. Chicago, is testing how the Second Amendment applies to state and local bans.
“The Second Amendment and the idea behind it was considered a civil right,” Pitts said. “It was about a public obligation men had so they could have firearms to protect their area.”
Opposed to this, modern cases question whether carrying firearms is a personal right as well. Pitts said she expects the Supreme Court to decide that carrying firearms is indeed a personal right and to declare complete bans as unconstitutional. The decision, however, probably will not be unanimous, with three of the nine Supreme Court justices likely dissenting, Pitts said.
A common argument against applying the Second Amendment to personal carrying rights is that it will, in turn, infringe on another valued right.
Summarizing the position, Pitts said, “The Constitution protects the right to life, and people running around with guns threatens that.”
Still, Pitts said the argument probably will not resist the history of the Supreme Court cases applying the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The process, called incorporation, started shortly after World War I and has continued to today. In June, the Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision on the McDonald case.
“This incorporation debate has a really long history,” Pitts said.
If the decision does prohibit state and local gun bans, the Supreme Court will probably still allow for some regulation of guns, such as banning of large weapons, Pitts said. Locally, for example, West Lafayette would not be able to pass a ban on handguns. Any effect on an entity such as Purdue is too far out to be determined.
Whatever the outcome, Pitts said the case has put typically opposing groups, such as constitutional liberals and the National Rifle Association, on the same side.
“It’s really interesting how this case has made strange friends.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.