Heller Good

So, it's the day after the US Supreme Court handed down a plate of serious red meat for those who pay attention to such things. District of Columbia v. Heller is one of those court cases that on the face appears to change everything, but the actual response will be something different. It depends on what happens next.

Yes, the case does clearly enunciate what people have suspected for 232 years - that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is an individual right and that the federal government cannot infringe on that right with an outright ban as per the District of Columbia's restrictive laws.

That doesn't mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional. It just means that some of the most restrictive laws around the country may need to come under closer scrutiny. Lawsuits will likely be filed in places like New York City and Chicago to question the constitutionality of laws that are unduly restrictive, though the outcome is not assured given that Heller did not address the issue of incorporation (that the decision applies to the states). Given that the District of Columbia may impose new laws to limit gun ownership, this is hardly over.

Prof. Reynolds provides his take on the decision here.

Cities led by politicians with instinctive desire to limit gun ownership decry the ruling claiming that it will lead to an increase in crime. They say that the decision will not hinder their efforts to prevent more bloodshed. Well, if those efforts include establishing NYC style policing and tactics to deal with crime - the broken windows theory, then they're on to something. However, if it means an ongoing attempt to restrict lawful gun ownership, then they are not solving the problem and people living in high crime areas are at the mercy of the criminals in those areas and would have to wait for law enforcement to clean up the mess after it's happened.

At least one law professor claims that the Heller decision is nothing more than judicial activism from a conservative bent. Hardly. The plain language of the Second Amendment is clear, and one has to look no further than the putrid dissent by Stevens and Breyer to see the tortured logic of trying to claim that the right to bear arms is anything other than an individual one.

So, how should one approach gun control laws on their constitutionality? Well, this is one approach, and I think it has significant merit for the reasons explained therein.

UPDATE:
Randy Barnett sees that this case will eventually be applied to the states via incorporation, and has further thoughts.