2nd amendment SC case studies Flashcards
What was the 2008 DC v Heller case about?
This landmark decision concerned the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, and its requirement that legally owned rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled. Dick Heller was a licensed special police officer who carried a gun in federal office buildings for his job, but was not allowed to have one in his home. The federal district court dismissed his lawsuit, but the court of appeals for the DC circuit reversed this and ruled that parts of the DC city council’s Firearms Control Regulations Act (1975) were unconstitutional. This then went to the SC
Outcome
The SC ruled 5-4, Kennedy and the conservative justices, that handguns for ‘arms’ for the purposes of the 2nd amendment, and that the act was unconstitutional both in its ban on handguns and in its requirement for the storage of rifles and handguns. The ruling did not rule out all gun control legislation, as the court said that ‘reasonable regulations’ could be justified, such as legislation banning certain types of firearms
Significance
This was the first case to whether the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to bear arms for self-defence or whether the right was intended for state militias. This is important because the 2nd amendment is vague, stating ‘a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’. The case is significant because it is the first to state that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected to service in a state militia. Former court of appeals judge Richard Posner compared this case to Roe v Wade (1973) in that it created a constitutional right that previously did not exist. In his view, the originalist method would have led to the opposite judgement due to the 2nd amendments explicit reference to a well-regulated militia. The legacy of Heller has been a significant number of lawsuits concerning gun ownership rights
Type of case
This case can be seen as overturning existing state policy
What was McDonald v City of Chicago about?
Following DC v Heller, there was a lack of clarity regarding whether this interpretation of the 2nd amendment should be applied to state and local governments. Washington DC is neither of those as it is a federal jurisdiction, so the Heller ruling on set a federal precedent. Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old retiree, wanted to purchase a handgun for self defence after his home and garage were broken into five times. The City of Chicago required handguns to be registered but had refused all handgun registrations since 1982, so it was impossible for him to own a handgun legally. Chicago also required guns to be re-registered annually, paying a fee annually, and if the deadline was missed then the gun was permanently non-registerable. McDonald argued that this was effectively a ban on handguns and sued the City of Chicago. The lawsuit was combined with a case brought by the NRA. The lawsuit was based on the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, which includes ‘incorporation’, which states that constitutional rights apply to state and local governments and not just the federal government
Outcome
Kennedy and the conservatives ruled 5-4 that that the due process clause did include the 2nd amendment right to bear arms to be fully applicable in the states
Significance
This confirmed the Heller decision that the 2nd amendment was to be interpreted as an individual right to self-defence. It also clarified that this right should be extended to all states
Type of case
The court overturned existing state policy
What was the 2016 Caetano v Massachusets case about?
Jamie Caetano was reported to have been hospitalised by her abusive boyfriend. After restraining orders proved futile, Caetano accepted the offer of a stun gun from a friend. When her ex confronted her outside her work one night, she displayed the stun gun and he left. The police later found out she was in possession of the stun gun and arrested and tried to convict her under a state law that prohibited the possession of stun guns
Significance
Extends the right to bear arms to weapons that did not exist at the time the constitution was framed, which has wider implications for things like automatic and semi-automatic weapons
Outcome
The Massachusetts SC stated that a stun gun was not the kind of gun protected by the 2nd amendment. Caetano then appealed to the US SC. In a unanimous decision they overruled the state SC ruling stating that the second amendment applies to ‘all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time’ They states that the state SC had made an error since their ruling contradicted the Heller ruling. Caetano was then found not guilty by a Massachusetts judge
Type of case
The court overturned both state policy and a previous court decision
