From NBCNews: Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

This will very likely end up in the Supreme Court.

- Click here for the article.

Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."

"It's a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it's en-banc and for the strength of its decision," Frosh said, noting that all of the court's judges participated.

Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

"For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand," Traxler wrote.

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, "It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected 'arm' under the Second Amendment." She added that the majority opinion "clearly ignores the Supreme Court's guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are 'in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'"

From Fortune: Court Rules That Medical Marijuana Card Holders Can't Buy Firearms

It'll be fun following the fallout of this one - hat tip to JS.

- Click here for the article.

Because it can make them “irrational and unpredictable.”

If you have a medical marijuana card, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that you can’t buy a gun.

The court ruled 3-0 on Wednesday that a ban preventing medical marijuana card holders from purchasing firearms is not in violation of the Second Amendment, the Associated Press reports. There are nine western states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction, including Nevada, where the case originated.

A lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Nevada resident S. Rowan Wilson after she tried to purchase a gun for self-defense and was denied based on a federal ban on the sale of guns to users of illegal drugs. Though marijuana has been legalized in some places on a state-by-state basis, it remains illegal under federal law. The court maintained that drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”

Wilson claimed that she doesn’t actually use marijuana, she simply obtained a card to show her support for its legalization. The appeals court agreed with guidelines from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that firearms sellers should assume that medical marijuana card holders use the drug.

Voisine v. United States - Ban on guns for domestic abusers upheld

Second Amendment rights are not absolute.

- Click here for background from Oyez.

- Click here for info from Scotusblog.

Issue: Whether a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9).

Mens rea translates as guilty mind.

Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as "mens rea", which is simply Latin for a "guilty mind". In other words, what a defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was committed matters. Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime.

From the Volokh Conspiracy: When Justices Thomas and Sotomayor dissent together.

From the Washington Post: Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Connecticut’s ban on ‘assault weapons’

This addresses a question posed last week about whether the Supreme Court might decide whether the Second Amendment applies to assault rifles. Their refusal to hear the appeal implicitly means that a majority thinks it does not.

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court declined Monday to review bans on a lengthy list of firearms that Connecticut classified as “assault weapons,” the latest example of the court’s reluctance to be drawn into an emotional national debate on gun control.

The justices decided without comment not to review a lower court decision that upheld the laws; Connecticut’s was enacted shortly after a gunman used one of the military-style semiautomatic weapons on the list to kill 20 students and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012.

The decision was not a surprise, as the court has previously declined to review other court decisions that uphold bans passed by cities and states. Maryland, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, as well as many cities and towns, have similar laws. None of the legal challenges to them have been successful in lower courts.

They were enacted after a federal ban expired in 2004. Attempts to revive the federal ban have failed. But Congress is once again embroiled in a debate over gun control after the massacre at an Orlando nightclub left 49 victims dead.

Like other laws, Connecticut’s ban includes semiautomatic guns and high-capacity magazines, and covers popular weapons such as AR-­15s and AK-­47s.

. . . The court’s action Monday continues a pattern. After recognizing the individual right for the first time in Heller, which covered the federal enclave of the District, the court made clear in a subsequent case that state and local governments, like Congress, could not prohibit individual gun ownership.

But since then, the justices have avoided all cases that might clarify whether that right is more expansive or which restrictions are too burdensome.

- Here is a link to the decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

From the Constitution Daily: Is there a constitutional right to have a rapidly firing assault gun?

This is timely.

- Click here for the article.

. . . here are the key issues that have been coming up regularly (none of which has yet been answered by the Supreme Court):

First, do assault-weapons and high-volume magazines get any protection under the Second Amendment, or are they outside of it in the same way that a military machine gun would be?

Second, is such a flat ban unconstitutional when the weapon involved is highly popular, and thus is recognized as one that is in common use – one of the factors that the Supreme Court has said should be considered?

Third, is such a flat ban always unconstitutional because it allows no exceptions, and thus puts such a commonly used weapon completely out of the hands of even trustworthy, law-abiding citizens?

Fourth, is the fact that the weapon is very much like the one that the military has traditionally used on the battlefield (the M-16) an indication that it should not be allowed for the general public – that is, is it too dangerous?

Fifth, if the Second Amendment does provide some protection for private possession of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, how rigorous should the constitutional test be? Should it be the tough test of “strict scrutiny,” or something less demanding?

From the NYT: 2nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Court Rules

The Second Amendment has yet to be interpreted to apply outside the home. This could provide the Supreme Court the opportunity to do so.

- Click here for article.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee the right of gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places, upholding a California law that imposes stringent conditions on who may be granted a concealed-carry permit.

The 7-to-4 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, overturned a decision by a three-judge panel of the same court and was a setback for gun advocates. The California law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a weapon, like working in a job with a security threat — a restriction sharply attacked by gun advocates as violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the court said in a ruling written by Judge William A. Fletcher.
The case was brought by gun owners who were denied permits in Yolo and San Diego Counties. The plaintiffs did not immediately say whether they planned to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

. . . Gun advocates swiftly condemned the ruling.

“This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection,” Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement.

With Thursday’s decision, the Ninth Circuit joins several other federal appeals courts in allowing state or local governments to put restrictions on the granting of concealed-carry licenses.

Mr. Winkler, the law professor, noted that the best indicator of whether the Supreme Court would take up a constitutional issue was there was a split among district courts. “Without a split in the circuits, the Supreme Court is less likely to take up the case,” he said.

But Mr. Lowy said that given the stakes of the decision — and the long history of litigation on the issue — he would not be surprised if the court decided to step in. “There is no circuit split, but it’s certainly possible that the court could decide it wants to address this,” he said. “I’d be surprised but not shocked if Supreme Court took this for review.”

The decision by the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had thrown out the requirement that a gun owner demonstrate “good cause” for getting a weapon. Within days of that decision, in 2014, counties across the state, which administer the permits, reported getting a flood of applicants seeking concealed weapons permits. Although the decision was stayed pending appeal, some county sheriffs began issuing permits; the status of those permits was not immediately clear.

In a dissent to Thursday’s ruling by the full court, Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan said that the Second Amendment protection to gun owners that applied in the privacy of one’s home — upheld in a 2008 Supreme Court decision involving a law in Washington, D.C. — “extends beyond one’s front door.

From the Atlantic: Clarence Thomas Breaks His Silence The Supreme Court justice asked a question for the first time in 10 years, revealing a different dynamic since the passing of Antonin Scalia earlier this month.

The case was Voisine v. United States - click here for Scotusblog's page on it.

Here is the issue before the court:

Issue: (1) Whether a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9); and (2) whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9) are unconstitutional under the Second, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

- Click here for the article.

The Texas Tribune: UT-Austin Issues Campus Carry Rules Barring Guns From Dorms

Let's see if there is push back from this - a Second Amendment lawsuit perhaps?

- Click here for the article.

Save for some narrow exceptions, guns will be allowed in classrooms but not in dorms at the University of Texas at Austin next school year under guidelines reluctantly issued by university President Greg Fenves on Wednesday.

Fenves submitted the rules to comply with the state's new campus carry law, which goes into effect Aug. 1. The law, Senate Bill 11, allows the concealed carrying of weapons in public university buildings by license holders across the state. But it gave universities the power to create limited rules that designate some "gun-free zones" in areas where it would be too dangerous to have weapons. Those zones must be limited in scope, however, and can't have the effect of making it practically impossible to carry a gun anywhere on campus. 

. . . Fenves' rules will ban guns in dorms except for three specific exceptions: Concealed handguns will be allowed in dorms' common areas; people who work in the dorms will be able to carry and family members visiting the dorms will also be allowed to carry.

While no classroom ban will be imposed, faculty members who don't share an office with anyone else can ban guns in their specific areas, Fenves said.

He also issued strict rules for how those guns can be carried. In most cases, students and other people carrying guns must keep the weapons "on or about their person" at all times. If people aren't carrying their guns, they'll have to keep them in their locked cars. Gun safes will only be allowed in one place — university apartments, which are mostly reserved for families and graduate students.

All guns that are being carried will have to be kept in a holster that protects the trigger. The gun can't have a bullet in its chamber. And it can't be visible; the state's new open carry law doesn't apply to college campuses.

From Slate: Are Assault Weapons Protected by the Second Amendment?

As of yet, the only weapon the Supreme Court has decided falls under the protection of the Second Amendment is a handgun, and only in homes. This is based on the argument that a broad interpretation of the amendment includes the right of self-defense - which is not mentioned in the amendment, but was commonly argued at the time of its ratification to be a reason why arms can be kept and borne.

Cases are winding their ways to the court which will allow them to rule whether protection applies not only to handguns, but to assault weapons as well. The author mentions some of these cases - including one that the Supreme Court decided to not hear in December - four justices chose not to hear the case. Another - Kolbe v Hogan - might be accepted though. It involves a ban on assault weapons passed by the state of Maryland following the Sandy Hook shooting. The lawsuit was filed by a variety of groups and a couple citizens who argue the Second Amendment should apply to assault weapons.

Specifically they are arguing - as I understand it - that limits on weapons should be subject to strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny. This is more difficult test to pass, which makes it more likely that limits on guns will be found constitutional.

- Click here for Kolbe v Hogan.

For grins - here's the list of plaintiffs. It's taken from the case.

- STEPHEN V. KOLBE
- ANDREW C. TURNER
- WINK'S SPORTING GOODS, INCORPORATED
- ATLANTIC GUNS, INCORPORATED
- ASSOCIATED GUN CLUBS OF BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED
- MARYLAND SHALL ISSUE, INCORPORATED
- MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED
- NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED
- MARYLAND LICENSED FIREARMS DEALERS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED

- Click here for the article in Slate.

In December the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging a Chicago suburb’s ban on selling and owning assault weapons. Two justices—Clarence Thomas joined by Antonin Scalia—offered up a bitter dissent when the court refused to weigh in. But the high court, which hasn’t heard a major gun case since 2010, nevertheless let stand a lower court’s ruling that the 2013 ban, adopted in Highland Park, Illinois, did not violate the Second Amendment or the court’s recent jurisprudence interpreting

On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court.

. . . Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act was passed along with a raft of similar gun control measures in other states in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre in December 2012. Twenty children and six adult staff members were killed in that massacre by a gunman using three semi-automatic firearms. Among other things, the Maryland statute banned possession of firearms designated as “assault weapons,” including AR-15s and AK-47s. Maryland also banned sales and purchases of ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. A District court in Maryland upheld the ban.

That ban and similar ones have been surviving in federal courts because they have been subject to intermediate scrutiny—a constitutional test that often turns on whether the government has a reasonable purpose for a gun law. Public safety is often sufficient to satisfy that standard. The 4th Circuit, in demanding that the lower court look at the Maryland law again under strict scrutiny—a standard that makes it very difficult to salvage a law—sets up the potential for a new high court showdown.

From Bloomberg: Obama's Gun Control Initiative Challenged in Federal Lawsuit

We discussed in class whether the expansion of background checks for gun buyers - and more specifically the requirement that gun sellers perform the checks - may or may not be constitutional. We don't really know because the court has never ruled on a such a case.

But now they may have the chance.

To be on the safe side - in case the Second Amendment argument fails - a second argument is being presented, that president did not follow the appropriate federal rule making process.

- Click here for the article.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s expansion of background checks for would-be gun buyers is being challenged in a lawsuit by a political activist who claims the changes violate the Constitution and the federal rule-making process.

Stymied by congress in prior attempts to enact gun-control legislation following mass shootings, the president on Jan. 5 announced a new interpretation of already-existing rules defining who is a firearms dealer. The new definition would subject more transactions -- including sales at gun shows and on the Internet -- to background checks, preventing sales to people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Those measures and others were unveiled by Obama in a sometimes tearful televised speech that drew immediate criticism from gun-rights supporters.

“It is clearly arbitrary and capricious for the defendants, each and every one of them, to now suddenly adopt and implement a new and different interpretation for no other reason than the political preferences of temporary occupants of elected office,” attorney Larry Klayman said in a complaint filed at the U.S. court in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Klayman, the founder of the political watchdog group Freedom Watch, claims the background-check initiative violates the constitution’s Second Amendment, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.Rule Making

Even if constitutional, the redefinition circumvented the federal rule-making process, he said. Klayman, who said he’s a Florida resident and the owner of two 9-millimeter handguns and one .45 caliber weapon, is seeking a court order blocking the executive action and declaring the measures unlawful.

A few major court cases related to the Second Amendment

Attention DHS dual credit students - we will walk through these cases, and the laws they challenge, at some point in class as a way to see how the interpretation of the Constitution can change over time.

This list is hardly comprehensive, but its intended to help students get an idea about how the court has interpreted and reinterpreted Second Amendment rights - as well as issues indirectly related to them - over history. I pulled these from various sources, but the Wikipedia page on firearms case law is especially useful.

- Click here for it.

Here are brief summaries:

- United States v. Cruikshank. (1875) This case was primarily about the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states. See: the Colfax Massacre and the Enforcement Act of 1870. Prior to the 14th Amendment, it only limited the national government. The text of the amendment suggested that the now citizens of the national government are protected from the actions of their state governments as well. The Supreme Court disagreed. It could not protect the nationally defined Second Amendment rights of African-Americans from actions of the states or private citizens. If they wanted to restrict constitutionally defined rights, they could.

- Presser v. Illinois (1886) The Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law limiting the ability of individuals to form their own militias, and to parade and drill with arms did not violate the national Second Amendment. They considered the Second Amendment to be an individual right. This allowed for the limitation for individual militias.

- United States v Miller. (1939) This was a constitutional challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934. The law required the registration of certain types of guns, as well as the payment of a tax. This was implemented by the IRS. The court ruled that the law was constitutional for a variety of reasons, most importantly because the guns affected were not used in militias and were not protected by the Second Amendment. Only military type weapons were protected.

- DC v Heller. (2006) This challenged the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 and placed limits on the ability of residents to own and posses handguns - among other weapons - in their homes. Guns in the homes also had to be disassembled - or otherwise unusable. A five person majority ruled that this violated an implicit right to self defense, and that guns not traditionally used in militias could fall under Second Amendment protection. The dissent argued - among other things - that it was reasonable for local government to want to limit the availability of guns as a way of preventing crime.

- McDonald v. Chicago (2010) The Heller case only applied to the national government since DC is under the jurisdiction of Congress. McDonald was a challenge to a similar ordinance and by virtue of the same argument - that there was and implicit right to self defense in the Second Amendment, and it applied to the state and local government through the 14th Amendment.

Libertarianism and the Second Amendment.

I'll try wrapping this up in a written assignment of some sort. Libertarians seem conflicted over how to best secure gun rights. They like the Second Amendment, but its in the national constitution. They're uneasy about using the power of the national government to limit state and local power. But, perhaps that's necessary.

From the Hoover Institution: The Libertarian Gun Fallacy.
From Reason.com: Libertarians, Guns, and Federalism.
From the Yale Law Journal:
- Firearm Localism.
- Why Firearm Federalism Beats Firearm Localism.

The first national gun control act: the National Firearms Act of 1934

As far as I can tell - not an expert on this - the statutory authority for the president's executive actions on background checks stems from this law, as well as its follow up in 1938. The 1934 law places a tax - an excise tax - on the sale of machine guns and sawed off shotguns, meaning both were still legal. This was during a time when Congress was expanding - and the Supreme Court was accepting - the idea that the tax and spending clause of the Constitution allowed taxes to be used to as a regulatory device, not just to collect revenue for predefined purposes.

Since it was a tax bill, it was originally part of the Internal Revenue Code.

The 1934 law also required all sales to be recorded in a national registry. The 1938 act expanded the law to require the licensing of interstate gun dealers, mandated that they record their sales, and prohibited sales of guns to to people convicted or indicted of committing violent crimes. Later laws modify these requirements - as do the recent executive actions - but this seem to be the basis of statutory authority.

Why did it take until 1934 for the national government to get into the business of regulating guns? Prior to this time, regulation was a fully state affair, but the availability of cars and better roads made it easier for criminals to evade states. This explains the expansion of the federal government into criminal law in general.

Here's a bit more on the original act:

- The 1934 National Firearms Act, and why it is obsolete.
- Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control.
- Fully-Automatic Firearms.
- Full text of the law.
- 26 U.S. Code § 5845.

From the Harvard Law Review: Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce? Defending the right to sell and trade arms

The Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms. The first of Obama's executive orders on guns places requirement on gun dealers, which is slightly different. They have to be licensed and they must perform background checks. I'm looking around for thoughts on whether these are reasonable regulations that do not limit general Second Amendment rights, but first I hunted for info on whether the Second Amendment and found the following. The author argues that the right to sell and trade arms is interwoven with the right to keep and bear them. He refers to good number of nuanced cases following DC v Heller. None of these have reached the Supreme Court.

I'm tempted to list them in a separate post - that depends on how much energy I have,

I don;t see a lot on the other side, but I'll keep looking. This article is part of a forum. You'll find other thoughts on random Second Amendment issues at the bottom of the page.

- Click here for the whole thing.

Precedents involving other constitutional rights show that businesses that provide constitutionally related services have standing in their own right to challenge statutes that injure them. For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth,28 abortion providers were held to have standing to challenge a statute that criminalized some of the ways in which they provided abortion services.29 They did not need to invoke the third-party abortion rights of their patients. Indeed, it has long been observed, including by Justice Harry Blackmun, that the rights of doctors were central to Roe v. Wade.30

Likewise, in American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut,31 booksellers themselves successfully brought a First Amendment challenge to an Indianapolis ordinance that criminalized their sale of what the ordinance called “pornography.”32 The booksellers did not need to rely on the customers’ rights as book buyers, but instead asserted their own First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision.33
On the merits, the abortion doctor plaintiffs in Planned Parenthood were partially successful, and the bookseller plaintiffs in American Booksellers Association were completely successful. The key point is that these providers of constitutionally protected goods and services had constitutional rights, and their particular claims were entitled to be tested under the strict standards that apply to restrictions on constitutional rights.

Besides invoking their own rights, businesses can also raise the third-party constitutional rights of their customers. For example, the beer vendor in Craig v. Boren34 could raise the equal protection rights of its customers against a state law that set different drinking ages based on sex.35 The principle goes back to Pierce v. Society of Sisters36 in 1925, where the owners of religious schools had standing to raise the constitutional rights of their students and families, successfully bringing a Fourteenth Amendment challenge against a state law that forbade all private K–12 schools.37

From the White House: FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer

I've yet to find confirmation, but what the president announced yesterday were executive actions that will form the basis of a series of executive orders. The White House posted the following fact sheet detailing their specific plans:

- Click here.

This is in addition to the following: Live Updates: What the President is Doing to Keep Guns Out of the Wrong Hands.

Here's my attempt to summarize the various proposals.

1 - Firearms sellers must have a federal license and must conduct background checks. The Bureaus of Alcohol, Tobacco, Forearms and Explosives is establishing the rules containing these requirements. Click here for the ATF's rulemaking page. The FBI is improving the background check system so that it works 24/7. Additional staff is to be hired to process these checks.

2 - 200 new ATF agents will be hired to help enforce gun laws. The next budget submitted by the president will request funds for the new personnel. An Internet Investigation Center (not on line yet as I can tell) has been established to track illegal online firearms trafficking, and more people have been hired for the National Integrated Ballistics Information Center.

3 - Half a billion dollars will be requested to expand access to mental health care. The Social Security Administration will issue a rule that will allow (as I interpret it) information it possesses regarding mental health for purposes of background checks. Also, the Department of Homeland Security will issue a rule that will (again as I interpret it) remove legal restrictions on states sharing information about the mental health of interested gun buyers with other states. Click here for the rule making process for SSA, and click here for the rule making process for DHS.

4 -  Three separate executive departments have been directed to "conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology." These are the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.

If you are keeping count, 8 separate institutions are involved in implementing these actions. And this is just a summary. The fact sheet goes more in depth.

From ScotusBlog: Court denies gun rights cases (UPDATED)

ScotusBlog's Lyle Dennison tries to explain why the Supreme Court decided to not hear the Second Amendment cases we've been discussing in class - the ones that were intended to get the court to expand the right to keep and bear arms for self defense outside the home.

Remember that two of these cases involved expanding access to guns to 18, 19 and 20 year olds. The court apparently see no reason to even consider the argument. I'm not sure whether this should be considered a statement about attitudes towards the Second Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment's applicability to age discrimination. Clearly the young can still be discriminated against when it comes to gun purchases - as it can with alcohol purchases.

- Click here for the article.

The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to settle the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home. The Court, without comment, denied three new petitions — two filed by the National Rifle Association — seeking clarification on the scope of an individual’s right to have a gun for personal self-defense. In other orders, the Court did not accept any new cases for review, although it did hold over a number of cases it had examined for potential review.

Since the Court first ruled nearly six years ago that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to have a gun, it has issued only one further ruling — expanding that right so that it applies nationwide, to state and local gun control laws, as well as to federal laws. But, without exception, the Justices have turned aside every potential sequel, essentially leaving it to lower courts to continue to sort out variations on the right.
One thing seemed clear from the denial of review of two of the new cases, the NRA’s challenges: the Court is not, as yet, ready to stop lower courts from creating an entirely new group in society with less than full gun rights. In those cases, it was youths aged eighteen to twenty years old.

One petition — NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms — was a challenge to the part of a 1968 law barring licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to those in that age bracket. The other case — NRA v. McCraw — was a challenge to a series of Texas laws that generally barred individuals in that age bracket from qualifying for a license to carry a handgun in public, outside the home.

In separate rulings in those cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit raised doubts about whether individuals in that age group are entitled to any protection under the Second Amendment, on the theory that the Supreme Court had upheld gun rights only for “responsible” individuals.

While the Supreme Court’s denial of review of those petitions was not explained, it cannot be said for sure that it agreed with the lower court’s view, but that view does prevail for the time being.

The third Second Amendment case denied review on Monday was Lane v. Holder, an attempt to get the Court to clarify when gun purchasers have a legal right (“standing,” in a technical sense) to go to court to challenge federal restrictions on gun buying. At issue is a provision of a 1968 law barring all interstate sales of guns except through federally licensed gun dealers, and whether purchasers can sue to challenge that limitation.

The Supreme Court will not hear Second Amendment cases

A bit of a disappointment - we looked at these cases last week in both 2305 and 2306.

- Click here for the notice in ScotuBlog.

The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to reopen the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home. The Court, without comment, denied three new petitions — two filed by the National Rifle Association. The cases were Nos. 12-1401, 13-137, and 13-390.

2306 students should click here for the order list to see just how few cases the Supreme Court agrees to hear. Unless I'm reading this wrong, they will hear only four of the many many cases they considered. No word on how they processed this many cases. Undoubtedly some over worked clerks were involved.

I'll post further commentary as it flies by.

From The Dish: The Expanding Right To Bear Arms

Andrew Sullivan calls attention to appellate court cases where the extent of the Second Amendment is not only expanded, but limits the ability of state and local governments to restrict the ability to carry guns outside the home.

- Click here for the story.

This story applies to a good handful of topics we cover in class. Civil liberties, how the judiciary interprets civil liberties - most recently the 2nd Amendment, checks and balances and federalism among them. Something for 2306 students to consider is how this affect that idea that states can serve as "laboratories of democracy." This seems to limit that possibility. The recognition of rights by the U.S. Supreme Court limits the ability of states to fine tune policies and act as laboratories of democracy. This is because once something is considered to be a "right" it cannot be limited by electorate.

Sullivan links to Lyle Denniston's ScotusBlog report, which I highly recommend reading since it details the process these cases have taken through the courts and the issues they raise, Like the NRS v MGraw case referred to below, the courts are being asked to consider whether the second amendment right - broadly interpreted - to have guns in the home for self defense purposes applies outside the home as well.

The states have been moving in the direction of more lenient gun laws - the Supreme Court may end up making that mandatory. A similar dynamic is underway with gay marriage and possibly marijuana laws. Maybe the death with dignity movement might follow this trajectory one day as well.

Here's a look at the expansion of gun rights in the states, and the growth of "Shall Issue Laws."

Click here for an explanation of shall issue, may issue, no issue and unrestricted states.

The Supreme Court to consider whether to hear a case involving Texas' concealed handgun laws

From ScotusBlog.

The case is National Rifle Association of America v. McCraw.

Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in case of confrontation includes the right to bear arms in public; (2) Whether that right to bear arms extends to responsible, law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults; and (3) whether Texas’s ban on responsible, lawabiding 18-to-20-year-old adults bearing handguns in public for self-defense violates the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

The McGraw mentioned in the case is Steven McGraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. No certainty the Supreme Court will choose to hear the case. Good Second Amendment material besides - this might even though on age discrimination, though that's not the question presented before the court.

Is there a right to bear switch blades?

We just might soon find out.