By Jacob Sullum
Gun Owners of America calls Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor an anti-gun radical. The Second Amendment Foundation says her selection was a slap at gun rights. Such characterizations are based mainly on Sotomayors participation in a January decision that said state and local governments are not bound by the Second Amendment.
But because it was arguably compelled by a series of 19th-century Supreme Court precedents Sotomayors conclusion does not necessarily signal an anti-gun bias.
In an unsigned opinion by a unanimous three-judge panel that included Sotomayor the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rejected a Second Amendment challenge to New York states ban on nunchaku the martial arts weapon consisting of two sticks joined by chain or cord. It is settled law the panel said that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose.
The appeals court cited
Presser v. Illinois an 1886 decision in which the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government and not upon that of the state. That decision which relied on the 1875 ruling U.S. v. Cruikshank was followed in 1894 by
Miller v. Texas which said it is well settled that both the Second and Fourth amendments operate only upon the federal power.
Nowadays of course federal courts routinely ask whether state or local governments have violated the Fourth Amendments prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Accordi
ng to the Supreme Court that guarantee along with others in the Bill of Rights applies to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The trio of 19th-century gun cases came after the 14th Amendment was ratified but before the Court began reading it to incorporate restrictions that had hitherto applied only to the federal government.
Now that the Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms applying it to the states along with the First Fourth Fifth Sixth and Eighth amendments is the logical next step. A footnote in D.C. v. Heller the 2008 case in which the Court overturned the District of Columbias handgun ban suggests it is leaning in that direction: With respect to Cruikshanks continuing validity on incorporation a question not presented by this case we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.
Read the rest of this article HERE
*This article is from www.TownHall.com
Gun Owners of America calls Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor an anti-gun radical. The Second Amendment Foundation says her selection was a slap at gun rights. Such characterizations are based mainly on Sotomayors participation in a January decision that said state and local governments are not bound by the Second Amendment.
But because it was arguably compelled by a series of 19th-century Supreme Court precedents Sotomayors conclusion does not necessarily signal an anti-gun bias.
In an unsigned opinion by a unanimous three-judge panel that included Sotomayor the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rejected a Second Amendment challenge to New York states ban on nunchaku the martial arts weapon consisting of two sticks joined by chain or cord. It is settled law the panel said that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose.
The appeals court cited Presser v. Illinois an 1886 decision in which the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government and not upon that of the state. That decision which relied on the 1875 ruling U.S. v. Cruikshank was followed in 1894 by Miller v. Texas which said it is well settled that both the Second and Fourth amendments operate only upon the federal power.
Nowadays of course federal courts routinely ask whether state or local governments have violated the Fourth Amendments prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Accordi
ng to the Supreme Court that guarantee along with others in the Bill of Rights applies to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The trio of 19th-century gun cases came after the 14th Amendment was ratified but before the Court began reading it to incorporate restrictions that had hitherto applied only to the federal government.
Now that the Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms applying it to the states along with the First Fourth Fifth Sixth and Eighth amendments is the logical next step. A footnote in D.C. v. Heller the 2008 case in which the Court overturned the District of Columbias handgun ban suggests it is leaning in that direction: With respect to Cruikshanks continuing validity on incorporation a question not presented by this case we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.
Read the rest of this article HERE
*This article is from www.TownHall.com
