Supreme Court Review: Gun Control vs. Gun Rights

2 hours ago 0

Supreme Court’s Upcoming Case Reviews on Gun Control

Gun control supporters often feel apprehensive when the Supreme Court reviews cases related to firearms. This term, their concerns are heightened as the court is set to hear two significant cases from Illinois and Connecticut. The focus is on whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments affirm the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

The decision will clarify whether the Constitution supports such firearm ownership. Gun rights groups are hopeful that the court will rule against bans on semiautomatic rifles, continuing a trend set by the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision. This ruling asserted the Second Amendment’s protection of individual firearm possession rights.

Legal Trends and Changes

Following Heller, gun rights have been consistently upheld, most recently in the 2021 case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The court ruled that restrictions on gun ownership are typically unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment’s plain text. The majority rejected previous methods that balanced government and individual interests, adopting a “history and tradition” test instead.

This test demands that current gun laws align with historical firearm regulations. However, this approach overlooks the potential dangers of modern firearms, which are significantly more lethal than those in historical contexts. Thus, unless historical laws provide a direct comparison, new regulations remain invalid despite strong governmental interests.

Case Studies and Events

Recent tragedies illustrate the stakes in this debate. In Newtown, Connecticut, a shooter used a semiautomatic rifle at Sandy Hook Elementary, killing 20 children and six adults. Connecticut responded by outlawing certain semiautomatic rifles through An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety.

Similarly, Highland Park, Illinois experienced a devastating attack during a July 4 parade, prompting Cook County to reinforce its ordinance against assault-style weapons. This regulation faces scrutiny as it is reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The tragic incidents in schools, places of worship, and other settings across the U.S. underscore the need for regulation. Despite legislative attempts to control these rifles, the gun rights lobby hopes the Supreme Court will apply the Bruen decision strictly, disregarding the potential costs and benefits of firearm restrictions.

Potential for Change

Hope remains. The Supreme Court recently demonstrated flexibility in U.S. v. Rahimi, adjusting the “history and tradition” standard to prevent domestic abusers from retaining firearms. There’s a possibility of similar reasoning in the assault weapons cases.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh offers another angle. In Trump v. Barbara, he suggested that constitutional rights might evolve with new, unforeseen circumstances at the time of ratification. While he referred to immigration and air travel, this rationale could extend to the widespread impact of semiautomatic weapons on public safety.

The argument in Bruen supported the right to arm oneself for self-defense, equating it to other constitutional rights. However, this right shouldn’t overshadow others, necessitating consistent interpretation with the rest of the Bill of Rights. As new situations influence birthright citizenship policy, similar reasoning could allow firearms restrictions under the Second Amendment.

Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. He coauthored “Judicial Conduct and Ethics.”