A victory for civil rights
<p>I&#8217;ve just read the Supreme Court&#8217;s <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf">opinion</a> in the Heller handgun-ban case, issued this morning. It&#8217;s a somewhat better result than I was expecting.</p>
<p><span id="more-296"></span></p>
<p>The good news: The ruling declares the District of Columbia&#8217;s ban on the possession of handguns facially unconstitutional. It also voids the trigger-lock requirement.</p>
<p>The better news: The majority opinion comes down firmly on the side of  an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, thoroughly demolishing the &#8220;militia&#8221; and &#8220;collective-rights&#8221; theories with a detailed historical analysis that confirms the <a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-56885658.html">Standard Model</a>. The language is very strong on this point.</p>
<p>The bad news: The Justices declined to specify the standard of judicial review appropriate for firearms legislation, and declined to rule on whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)">incorporation</a> of the Second Amendment via the 14th Amendment  constrains state firearms laws.</p>
<p>The worse news: it was a 5-4 split along predictable liberal-conservative lines.  Scalia wrote the majority opinion.</p>
<p>Future implications&#8230;</p>
<p>The majority opinion suggests strongly that the Court will rule for incorporation when a case reaches it from the state courts (D.C, being a district directly under Federal jurisdiction, is an odd special case).  The opinion also signaled a willingness to hear cases bearing on state regulation &#8212; and I&#8217;m told the NRA launched lawsuits today in San Francisco, Chicago<s>, and New York</s>.  (Turns out I misheard on the last one.)</p>
<p>I think it is now virtually certain that possession bans such as New York City&#8217;s will not stand longer than it takes a case to make its way through the appeals process.  That is, unless the composition of the Court changes between now and then.</p>
<p>Accordingly, this ruling may have an impact on the 2008 elections. Most observers were expecting a pro-individual-rights finding, and the conventional wisdom had been that this would help Democrats by taking the whole issue of gun bans out of play.  But I think the 5-4 split is going to reverse that and help Republicans &#8212; it has already been pointed out in public that McCain would be smart to campaign for votes among the 67% of Americans who agree with the individual-rights interpretation by pointing out that one more anti-gun Supreme court justice could swing the Court the other way.</p>
<p><b>UPDATE:</b> Nice potshot by McCain: <i>â€œUnlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, todayâ€™s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right â€” sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,â€</i>  Uh huh.  Obama supporters may be hoping this issue is going to go away, but it&#8217;s not going to if McCain is smart enough to keep hammering on the links between Obama&#8217;s anti-gun record, his stated contempt for small-town America, and his ties to radical-left terrorists like Bill Ayers.</p>
<p><b>UPDATE**2:</b> Blogger Sayuncle <a href="http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/06/26/to-heller-and-back/">writes</a>: <i>&#8220;In other news, 5-4 was bit too close for comfort in my opinion. I was figuring on 6-3 or 7-2, honestly. Sure, this quiz was pass/fail but we were only one heart attack away, my friends. I hate to say it but that one reason is why Iâ€™ll hold my nose, get good and hammered, and pull the lever for John McCain. And Iâ€™d have to shower after that too.&#8221;</i>  I think a lot of pro-gun swing voters who loathe McCain for various reasons (mine is the McCain-Feingold rape of the First Amendment) are going to reason the same way.</p>
<p>In retrospect, I shouldn&#8217;t have expected the Court to rule on the incorporation issue until the facts of a pending case required it.  My main remaining disappointment is therefore that I was hoping for the Court to set a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny">strict-scrutiny standard</a> as with the First Amendment.  This will doubtless be decided in a future case, since the Court has clearly indicated a willingness to grant certiorari on related issues.</p>
<p>The struggle to reassert firearms owners&#8217; civil rights is far from over, but this is a major victory.</p>
