Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

Supreme Court seems ready to extend gun rights to cities, states

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a landmark gun rights case that could apply the Second Amendment's right to bear arms to both cities and states.

(Page 2 of 2)

The answer came within a few minutes of the start of the argument when Scalia asked Second Amendment Foundation lawyer Alan Gura whether he thought it would be easier for the court to extend Second Amendment protections to the states via Mr. Gura’s suggested privileges and immunities approach.

Skip to next paragraph

“No,” Gura answered, a bit stunned.

“If the answer is ‘No,’ why are you asking us to overturn 140 years of established law?” Scalia asked, with characteristic bluntness. The justice opined that the only possible reason to urge such a radical course would be to obtain a professorship and bragging rights at some exalted university.

Spectators could almost hear the air coming out of the privileges-and-immunities argument.

Then Scalia delivered the coup de grace. Why not present the due process clause as the better route to applying the Second Amendment to the states, Scalia offered. He allowed that there had been times he’d “acquiesced to it.”

The court had granted 10 minutes for former Solicitor General Paul Clement to present an argument on behalf of the National Rifle Association. Mr. Clement urged the justices to follow the path of least resistance by using the due-process clause to apply the Second Amendment to the states. He assured them it would be “remarkably straightforward.”

Justice John Paul Stevens, who dissented in the Heller case, told Clement that the Supreme Court hadn’t applied a federal constitutional right to the states in 30 years.

Clement acknowledged that there aren’t many rights left in the Bill of Rights that haven’t already been applied to the states. Other than gun rights, they include the right to a grand jury indictment and a jury trial in certain civil cases.

Second Amendment a 'different' kind of right?

Arguing on behalf of the City of Chicago, James Feldman at times seemed to be trying to convince the court to overturn its decision in the Heller case.

He argued that the Second Amendment was a different kind of right because it involved a dangerous and deadly weapon. “This is a right that has always been subject to the political process [for regulation],” he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts replied that, even if the high court applies Second Amendment protections to gun owners in states and cities, it won’t necessarily mean cities and states will lose their ability to enact local gun laws.

He said the court had not yet defined the content of Second Amendment rights.

Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that the court has applied constitutional rights to the states but also allowed the states amplitude to enact regulations. “Why can’t we do the same thing with firearms?” he asked.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg both noted that the Heller decision had suggested that “reasonable” gun regulations at the state and local level would not violate the majority’s interpretation of Second Amendment rights.

Feldman countered that Chicago believes its handgun ban is a reasonable regulation that does not seriously infringe a right of self-defense, since residents can possess rifles for that purpose.

Scalia responded that the 2008 Heller decision was “careful not to impose a broad prohibition [on gun regulations], because [the majority justices] recognized this is a national problem.”

In pictures: The debate over gun rights