Firearms Lawyer Blog

Our Miami gun crimes defense attorneys are anticipating an important ruling from the United States Supreme Court this session. As the Christian Science Monitor reported March 1, the justices will hear oral arguments March 2 in a case that could change gun control across the United States. In McDonald v. Chicago, Otis McDonald, a man in his seventies from the South Side of Chicago, is challenging that city’s ban on owning handguns. He says he’d like a gun to protect himself and his wife from gang members. In essence, he and his attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to state and local gun-control laws. The justices are expected to say that it does.

In some ways, the case is repeat of D.C. v. Heller, the June 2008 ruling that struck down a similar ban in Washington, D.C. In that case, the court said the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own firearms and use them legally, even if they are not part of a government “militia.” However, the justices stopped short of invalidating all gun controls, such as restrictions on carrying firearms into schools. That ruling applied only to federal land, which includes the capital but no other U.S. cities. That meant McDonald and others like him had to file their own cases to determine whether the court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment in Heller applies to state and local laws as well. Other state laws that might come under fire include bans on carrying a loaded weapon in public and possession bans for people convicted of domestic violence.

In the past, the court has applied parts of the Bill of Rights to states by using the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition that “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” It is expected to do that in this case. However, the Chicago plaintiffs and some conservative legal observers prefer that the court use another part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids states from making laws “which abridge the privileges or immunities” of citizens. To do that, it has to overturn three rulings from the 1870s and 1880s that undercut the privileges and immunities clause and specifically said the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government.

Our West Palm Beach firearms criminal defense lawyers will not presume to tell the court which argument is best. However, we hope that the court meets public expectations by expanding its ruling in Heller to Chicago and everywhere else in the United States. A full ban on handguns is against the plain language of the Second Amendment. The court has expanded many other parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, and this right is no different except that it’s less popular. And, contrary to what the defendants claim, a ruling for McDonald wouldn’t necessarily allow just anyone to get their hands on a dangerous weapon. The majority opinion in Heller specifically said states are free to place certain restrictions on gun ownership.