Second Amendment

District of Columbia v. Heller

Issues

Does the Second Amendment give individuals not affiliated with any state-regulated militia the right to "keep and bear" arms?

top

 

The  District of Columbia bans possession of handguns, and bans anyone from carrying a handgun or other deadly or dangerous weapon without a license within its borders (the "Gun Ban"). It also requires that any firearms which may be kept within the District, such as rifles, be kept either disassembled or with a trigger lock. These are some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Mr. Heller claims these laws violate his Second Amendment right to "keep and bear Arms." The Supreme Court has not taken a Second Amendment case since 1939, and has never decided whether the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms upon individuals or only upon the militias it refers to in its opening clause. In the intervening 69 years, the federal and state governments have passed many laws regulating and restricting the ownership and use of guns. Should the Supreme Court uphold the D.C. Circuit's invalidation of the Gun Ban, it could have a substantial impact on these gun laws and will almost certainly lead to more litigation as gun rights advocates challenge those laws as violating the Second Amendment. If the Court finds that the Gun Ban is constitutional, it will strengthen the ability of government to regulate gun ownership, and may result in more restrictive gun laws across the country.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

In 1976, the District of Columbia ("D.C." or the "District") City Council enacted three of the strictest gun control ordinances in the United States . The ordinances entirely ban the possession of handguns within the District and, while allowing residents to keep rifles and shotguns in their homes, require those guns be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock (hereinafter referred to as the "Gun Ban"). See D.C.

Additional Resources

· Justice Talking : The Right to Bear Arms - A Surprising Split Among Liberals

· Brief for Violence Policy Center and the Police Chiefs for the Cities of Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Seattle in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for Jack N. Rakove, Saul Cornell, David T. Konig, William J. Novak, Lois G. Schwoerer et al. in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for Law Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler, as in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials in Support of Petitoner

· Brief for Professors of Criminal Justice in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for the City of Chicago and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago in Support of Petitioner (reprint)

· Brief for DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, D.C. Chamber of Commerce, D.C. for Democracy, D.C. League of Women Voters, Federal City Council of Lawyers in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the Childrens Defense Fund, Women Against Gun Violence, and Youth Alive! in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English Dennis E. Baron, Ph. D, Richard W. Bailey, Ph. D, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for the United States of America as Amicus Curiae

· Brief for the the American Jewish Committee et al. in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for the National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. in Support of Petitioner

· Brief for American Legislative Exchange in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Buckeye Firearms Foundation LLC, et al. in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars, and the Claremont Institute in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Foundation for Free Expression in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Alaska Outdoor Council, et al. in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr. et al. in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Grass Roots of South Carolina, Inc. in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Libertarian National Committee in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Second Amendment Foundation in Support of Respondent

· Brief for 55 Members of the United States Senate, the President of the U.S. Senate, and 250 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Respondent

· Brief for 126 Women State Legislatures and Academics in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Virginia1774.org in Support of Respondent (reprint)

· Brief for Paragon Foundation in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the CATO Institute and History Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations Commonly Deployed by Opponents of an Individual-Right-Based Interpretation of the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania Joseph B. Scarnati, III in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Institute for Justice in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Former Senior Officials of the Department of Justice in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Foundation for Moral Law in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Gun Owners of America, Inc. et al. in Support of Respondent

· Brief for State Firearm Associations in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. et al. in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, D.C. and the Liberty Legal Institute in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Academics in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Academics for the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Center for Individual Freedom in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Retired Military Officers in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Heartland Institute in Support of Respondent

· Brief for National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Goldwater Institute in Support of Respondent

· Brief for American Civil Rights Union in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Support of Respondent

· Brief for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Jeanette M. Moll et al. in Support of Respondent

· Brief for Members of Congress in Support of Reversal

Submit for publication
0

Garland v. Cargill

Issues

Are semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump stocks considered machineguns under the National Firearms Act of 1934?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock device is considered a “machinegun” under the National Firearms Act of 1934. A bump stock device is a rifle attachment that increases a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire. In 2018, in response to a mass shooting in Las Vegas, the government issued a new regulation interpreting the National Firearms Act, which prohibits machineguns, to also prohibit bump stock devices. Michael Cargill, who was forced to surrender several bump stock devices to the government, argues that a bump stock is not a machinegun, because a bump stock does not allow a semi-automatic rifle to fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger” or allow such a weapon to fire “automatically.” The government contends that a bump stock is a machinegun, and that legislative history and congressional intent support its interpretation of the statute. The outcome of this case has important ramifications on the risk of mass shootings and deaths in crowded areas, Second Amendment rights, and the ability of federal agencies to interpret federal statutes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger.”

Since Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, federal law has regulated machine guns. Cargill v. Garland at 2. The Act defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots . . . automatically more than one shot . . .

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0

Garland v. VanDerStok

Issues

Are weapons parts kits or incomplete frames or receivers regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968?

This case asks the Court to determine whether the Gun Control Act of 1968’s definition of “firearm” permits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) to regulate weapons parts kits and incomplete frames and receivers. Merrick Garland, Attorney General, et al., argues that a natural reading of the word “firearm” includes weapon parts kits, incomplete frames, and receivers; and, that failing to regulate these items would create a loophole in the nation’s gun laws. Jennifer VanDerStok et al., counters that the rule is outside the scope of the ATF’s authority. This case touches on important questions regarding the Gun Control Act of 1968, and its ability to regulate ghost guns.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.

The definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) includes “any weapon… which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” as well as “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” VanDerStok v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

McDonald v. Chicago

Issues

May a state or local government ban possession of handguns in light of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms?

 

The 2008 Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia ruled that Washington D.C. gun control laws that effectively banned the possession of handguns violated an individual’s Second Amendment right to self-defense. Petitioners, Otis McDonald, et al. (“McDonald”), challenge the constitutionality of Respondent’s, City of Chicago’s (“Chicago”), gun control laws, arguing that they are similar to Heller’s. After Heller, the federal government cannot prohibit the possession of handguns in the home. This case raises the question of whether the same restriction applies to state governments. McDonald argues that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that states should not be able to infringe. Chicago argues that states should be able to tailor firearm regulation to local conditions. The outcome of this case will affect the ability of states to regulate the possession of handguns in their jurisdictions and could have far-reaching effects on long-held conceptions of federalism.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. Amend. II. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Associated Press, Mark Sherman: Ban Handguns? Supreme Court Taking A New Look (Sept. 30, 2009)

CNN, Bill Mears: Justices Take On Potentially Landmark Gun Rights Cases (Sept. 30, 2009)

New York Times, Adam Liptak: Justices Will Weigh Challenges to Gun Laws, N.Y. Times (Sept. 30, 2009)

Submit for publication
0

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

Issues

Does the Second Amendment guarantee all Americans the right to carry concealed firearms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether New York’s discretionary gun permit law, which requires an applicant demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a weapon for self-defense purposes, violates the Second Amendment. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for a general concealed carry permit under New York law, but their applications were denied by Richard McNally for lack of proper cause. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (“NYSRPA”) contends that at least one of its members would be eligible for a concealed carry permit but for New York’s proper cause requirement. Petitioners Nash, Koch, and NYSRPA brought a Section 1983 claim challenging the law, arguing that it violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Respondents McNally and Kevin Bruen—the superintendent of the New York State Police—counter that the law is a valid exercise of New York’s regulatory power. This case has important implications for the future of gun ownership and regulation, public safety, and racial discrimination.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the state of New York's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

New York law criminalizes the possession of handguns; however, a New York citizen may apply for a license to own, and in some circumstances even publicly carry, a handgun. NY State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

Issues

Does New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed handgun to a location outside of the City violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, or the right to travel?

This case asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether New York City’s (the “City”) restrictions on the transportation of handguns is unconstitutional pursuant to the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, or the fundamental right to travel. Under a former rule, the City issued premises licenses to qualified individuals. Such licenses permitted a licensee to possess a handgun at the licensee’s City residence but placed restrictions upon the transportation of the handgun to locations outside of the City. Romolo Colantone, Efrain Alvarez, and Tony Irizarry (collectively, “Petitioners”) were issued premises licenses and wanted to use their handguns at shooting ranges and competitions located outside of the City, and Colantone wanted to transport his handgun to and from his second home in upstate New York. Petitioners, joined by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, argue that the City’s transportation restrictions violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the fundamental right to travel. The City, joined by the New York City Police Department-License Division, counters that its former rule is a constitutional exercise of its regulatory power and protects public safety. The City recently amended the rule at issue, so the City also argues that this case is moot. In addition to impacting City residents who possess handguns under a premises license, the Court’s decision will have implications for public safety concerns of vulnerable populations and populations living within major urban areas and is likely to inform national debate on gun control.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.

New York State prohibits the unlicensed possession of handguns. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York at 52. In New York City (the “City”), licensing officers may issue a handgun license to a City resident pursuant to 38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-23 (the “Rule”). Id.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

United States v. Rahimi

Issues

Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits people under domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, violate the Second Amendment?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which bans firearm possession for someone under a civil protective order due to domestic violence, violates the Second Amendment on its face. Petitioner United States argues that the ban does not violate the Second Amendment because the history and tradition of firearm regulations in the United States allow Congress to disarm individuals who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens, such as those subject to civil protective orders. In opposition, Respondent Zackey Rahimi contends that § 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment on its face because the Second Amendment protects the firearm rights of all United States citizens and § 922(g)(8) bears no resemblance to any firearm regulations in American history. The outcome of this case will affect the constitutionality of laws that address domestic violence, as well as how future gun regulations will be analyzed.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Respondent Zackey Rahimi was involved in five shootings. United States v. Rahimi at 2. On December 1, Rahimi sold drugs to a buyer and, when the buyer talked badly about him, fired multiple shots into the buyer’s residence with an AR-15 rifle.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Second Amendment