![handle is hein.crs/crsmthaactq0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Legal Sidebar
No Second Amendment Cases for the Supreme
Court's 2014-2015 Term...Yet
As the Supreme Court begins its 2014-2015 Term, it appears that there will be no cases involving the
Second Amendment on its docket. Commentators have observed that the Court appears to have become
gungthv regarding this issue, given that it has not taken up a Second Amendment case since its landmark
rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010. During the
summer, the Court denied review in at least two cases challenging state firearms laws. Qne would have
questioned whether it is permissible under the Second Amendment for New York City to require residents to
pay $340 for a three-year residential handgun license, which they are required to have under state law in
order to lawfully possess a handgun. The second would have questioned whether it is permissible under the
Second Amendment for New Jersey to require applicants wishing to obtain a license to carry a concealed
handgun to show a justifiable need.
Had the Court granted review in either of these cases, it would have further fine-tuned the scope of the
Second Amendment, which thus far protects an individual right to possess a firearm and the use of that
firearm in defense of hearth and home. Despite the lack of guidance from the Supreme Court, there has
been much activity in the lower courts, with several notable decisions issued this summer.
Recently, for example, a fera ir crt declared that the District of Columbia's ban on carrying a gun
in public violates the Second Amendment because it found that the right extends outside the home. In
response to the Palmer v. District of Columbia ruling, the DC government passed Iegislatin that will
establish a regulatory structure by which individuals may apply to the DC Police Department for a permit to
carry a concealed firearm. Critics, however, believe that the legislation plainly fails to comply with the
court's ruling and is something of a joke, as drafters of the legislation indicated that very few applicants
might end up qualifying for permits. The District's new legislation appears to be similar to other states,
such as Maryland and New Jersey, that have restrictive laws on granting concealed carry permits. Thus far,
these states' laws have withstood constitutional scrutiny. However, the District's new legislation comes on
the heels of another federal appellate court dedai, which ruled unconstitutional a county's policy that
required permit applicants to demonstrate more than a generalized concern for personal safety in order to
satisfy the State of California's requirement that an applicant show good cause. The application of this
policy had the effect of severely limiting the number of individuals who could qualify for a concealed carry
permit. Thus, the District's new firearms law could be subject to a future Second Amendment challenge
depending on how it implements its new permitting scheme for carrying firearms in public.
Another notable firearms ruling from the summer is a federal district court Drder declaring that the State of
California's 10-day waiting period burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as applied
to certain individuals. These include individuals who pass a background check at the time of purchase, and
either 1) already lawfully possess a firearm as confirmed by the State of California, or 2) possess a valid
concealed carry weapons permit issued by the State of California, or 3) possess a valid certificate of
eligibility issued by the State of California and a firearm as confirmed by the state. As the court found,
[o]ne cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms without actually possessing a firearm. The court
provided California 180-days to update it laws and regulations to allow such individuals to immediately
possess a firearm upon passing a background check. Even though only a handful of states impose a waiting
period before transferring a firearm, this type of provision could be the next area ripe for future Second
Amendment litigation.
Since-eier, several courts have upheld the constitutionality of state laws that prohibit the possession of](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/crsmthaactq0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most