2nd Amendment cases

Question 1

Bliss

▪ Involved a Kentucky constitutional
provision guaranteeing a right to arms.
▪ The legislature banned concealed carry
of weapons.

Answer 1

▪ The court found that Kentucky’s
constitution protected concealed carry.

Question 2

Reid

▪ Involved an Alabama constitutional
provision guaranteeing a right to
arms.
▪ The legislature banned concealed
carry of weapons

Answer 2

The court considered English
history in defining the right to arms
and found the ban constitutional.
Originalism is old!!
▪ The court was more deferential
than Bliss to the legislature.

Question 3

Heller v. District of
Columbia
▪ Plaintiff wanted to keep a pistol in his home.
▪ The D.C. ban made it a crime to carry
unregistered handguns and generally forbade
people from registering handguns.
▪ The chief of police had discretion to give
licenses which would only be good for a
year.
▪ Long guns had to be kept disassembled and
unloaded at home.

4 points

Answer 3

• Heller established that we use an originalist framework to interpret the Second Amendment and that it protects an individual right to own and operate a firearm in common use unconnected to military service.

▪ Heller held that the Second Amendment is not subject to the balancing analysis we often saw in the First Amendment context.

▪ Heller suggested that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect certain individuals:
➢Felons
➢Mentally ill

▪ Heller suggested that the government can ban guns in sensitive places like schools and
other government buildings

Question 4

Heller v. District of Columbia Majority:
Core Claims

Answer 4

1. The text of the Second
   Amendment protects an
   individual right to arms
   unconnected with military service.
2. Founding era history supports the
   idea that the Second Amendment
   protects an individual right to
   arms.
3. The Second Amendment
   shouldn’t be subject to a
   balancing analysis.

Question 5

D.C. v. Heller: Textual Analysis

Answer 5

Claim#1: Focus on the Operative
Clause
- “ the right of the prople to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

• Claim #2: Definition of “Keep”
  and “Bear”
  ▪ “Bear arms” has a different meaning than
  “bear arms against.”
  ▪ “Keep” and “bear” as used protects a
  broader right than military service.
• Claim #3: “Right of the people” refers to
  individual rights not collective ones

Question 6

Heller v. District of Columbia Majority:
Historical Support

Answer 6

1. English history supported treating the right to arms as an individual right.
2. Early state constitutions.
3. Court decisions before the Civil War.

Question 7

Heller v. District of Columbia: Limits on the Second Amendment

Answer 7

▪ Government can prohibit “unusually
dangerous” weapons like the M16.
▪ Government can prohibit weapons in
“sensitive” places like schools and
government buildings.
▪ Government can keep felons and the
mentally ill from having firearms.

Question 8

Heller v. DC
The supreme court decided that the second amendment guarentees an individuals right to

Answer 8

possess firearms for self-defense

Question 9

New York Pistol Association v. Bruen
- 3 points

Answer 9

1.The court rejected a balancing analysis and created a history and
tradition test to evaluate gun regulations.
2.The court held that New York’s “may” issue gun law was
unconstitutional but suggested 43 states with “shall” issue gun laws
were on constitutionally solid ground.
3.There is considerable uncertainty about how to apply the new
history and tradition test but the more regulations you can find to
support a gun regulation, the better.

Question 10

New York Pistol Association v. Bruen Guidance

Answer 10

1. The case ended balancing analysis for the Second
   Amendment and imposed a history and tradition test to
   evaluate gun regulations.
2. Justice Thomas was strict and wanted modern regulations to
   closely resemble historical gun regulations.
3. Going forward, states that have “may issue” gun licensing
   regimes are constitutionally suspect, but states with “shall”
   issue regimes are presumably constitutionally acceptable.

Question 11

Rahimi Summary

Answer 11

1. The Court held that a congressional statute preventing people who presented a “credible” threat to a domestic partner’s safety from owning a firearm for any reason was constitutional.
2. The Court suggested that analogies between historic gun
   regulations and modern-day regulations can be somewhat loose.
3. The Court still has serious unresolved questions about how a
   history and tradition test applies.