So as a DC resident and lawyer, I guess I should weigh in on Antonin and the boyz upholding my constitutional right to strap on a gat and defend my castle. I really don't have the patience to read a sixty plus page opinion (and I can't really assign it to an associate) so I am relying to a large degree on the reporting of Linda Greenhouse and Dahlia Lithwick about the case -- the two of them are consummate pros and a couple of the best journalists in the country, so I don't feel too bad about this.
I have always found the Second Amendment to be a slightly baffling read, considering its brevity:
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.
For the first time yesterday, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual citizen the right to own firearms. This is contrary to the Court's last treatment of the issue in the case of United States v. Miller in which you a unanimous Court rejected the individualist reading of the Amendment. My quick read of Scalia's opinion at pages 49-53 (yes Goddamn it, I felt compelled to actually look at the text) is that he engages in one of his patented acts of intellectual dishonesty, denying that he and the majority are overruling Miller much to the chagrin of Justice Stevens. In so doing, Scalia once again shows how willing he is to reject the notion of Stare decisis when it suits his needs.
So what does all this mean? Well, probably an explosion of federal court litigation over each and every attempt to regulate firearms and ammunition on a state and local level. One of the first things that federal courts are going to have to decide is whether the Second Amendment applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment as virtually all of the other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights do. My guess is that the courts will so find -- an outcome I support for reasons of consistency as opposed to result.
In the end, I suspect that most courts, including eventually the Supreme Court, will uphold the kinds of common sense restrictions on certain types of weaponry and ammunition that already enjoy broad support among the public -- i.e., restrictions on machine guns and fully automatic weapons, huge ammo clips, and armor piercing bullets -- as consistent with the Second Amendment. But I think an awful lot of federal court resources will be expended in the process.
From a political perspective I think the results are pretty neutral. Like a lot of progressives, I have basically given up on significant advancements in gun control. We have a gun loving culture and for an intense minority, the right to own a gun is viewed as paramount. Many of these are working class people who are vital to achieving any kind of long term liberal tendency in American politics. So rather than lose their support for what tend to be symbolic items, I am reconciled to living in a country with far too many weapons.
Personally, I will not be exercising my new found rights here in the District. But watch out for Yglesias. He'll be packing.
