The NRA is pushing to end further gun bans across the country following the US Supreme Court ruling against the D.C. handgun ban on the grounds that such weapons were protected under an individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution:
Following up on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects a private right to possess firearms that is not limited to militia service, the NRA today filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs.
“The Supreme Court held yesterday that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “These lawsuits will ensure that state and local governments hear those words.”
The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. NRA is joined in that suit by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove, and Oak Park.
All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as “incorporation.” Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.
It seems unbelievable that an argument against incorporation could stand at this point. Someone would actually have to argue that people in federal territories have a protected right to keep and bear arms but that people in States do not. I'm sure some will try, one way or another... but it's difficult to see how any court could deny incorporation after this ruling.
Especially when the court eloquently pointed out that the primary purpose of the Amendment was to ensure the people were armed so that the common people could be an effective militia (all persons capable of bearing arms for the common defense)... but the critical point was that the primary reason was not the only reason for the right, and the right exists regardless. Given this right exists so prominently in the bill of rights, and all incorporation cases thus far have involved fundamental liberties being protected from infringement by State/local government... these cases sound like sure deal to me.
I'm excited, but cautiously excited.