WASHINGTON D.C.- The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that laws prohibiting possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-protection are unconstitutional not only at the federal level, but also on the state and local level.
The case, MacDonald v. City of Chicago, was a contentious 5-4 decision that extended the ruling of District of Colombia v. Heller, which banned federal laws prohibiting handgun ownership in the homes of Washington, D.C. residents.
The opinion also mentioned constitutionally consistent regulations like those made to restrict felons from buying guns or people carrying them on school grounds or in government buildings.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, saying, “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day.” He said that self-defense was the “central component” of the Second Amendment.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined in dissent, saying the Heller case had been decided incorrectly and that the gun protections don’t need to extend to local governments. They argued that the ownership of handguns was hotly disputed as a right and hardly could be considered fundamental. They also argued that even if it were, incorporation was not justified in this case as “there is no reason here to believe that incorporation of the private self-defense right will further any other or broader constitutional objective.”
Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, has been a strong advocate of gun safety legislation and said she wasn’t surprised by the ruling, finding it consistent with the ruling of Heller.
“The good news is that there is still plenty of room for regulation to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals,” she said. “The government still has a very strong role in protecting public safety from gun violence.”
The New York Times called the ruling an “enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights,” but some Oregon supporters seem less enthusiastic.
Kevin Starrett, of the pro-gun lobbying organization the Oregon Firearms Federation, said that while the ruling was a step in the right direction, it was a small one.
“The practical effect, I think, is pretty minimal,” he said. “I think it will encourage additional lawsuits, but I don’t see anything changing.”
Rep. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, was concerned with the narrow scope of the ruling, which applied only to possession in the home.
“I think people ought to be able to protect themselves, not just in their homes,” she said. “I don’t think your rights go out the window just because you walk into a government building.”
Thatcher said this ruling might chill any cities or counties that were considering passing such ordinances, but otherwise it would have very little impact on Oregon.
This is because of Oregon’s preemption clause, which gives the state legislature alone the power to make laws that restrict or regulate gun possession, sale and carry. So, Oregon cities and counties cannot pass any local gun control ordinances that would be affected by this ruling. Cities and counties, however, may have their own restrictions on loaded carrying.
However, Starrett said that the clause was violated “with the regularity of a metronome.” The issue was not so much with cities and counties passing ordinances as agencies prohibiting guns on their property without the legislature approving a law.
A well-known incident recently involved a school teacher who was told she could not have her handgun on school grounds, despite being a licensed carrier. She sued, but the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school district.
Other controversial issues included prohibitions on carrying, even for licensed carriers, at state fairs and in government buildings. Currently, the OFF is also involved in a lawsuit with the Oregon University system after a student with a concealed carry permit was expelled and arrested for having a gun on campus.
“The preemption statute, which was well-intended, means less and less,” Starrett said.
Burdick said she could sympathize with the desire of schools and universities to keep guns off school property and off campuses.
“For years I’ve been trying to give school boards clear authority to keep all guns out of schools,” she said. “Guns don’t belong in certain areas.”
Burdick said many gun owners favor reasonable regulations because they understand the responsibility of gun ownership, but that many of those regulations, like those that would prohibit carrying school and university property, have “fallen into the firestorm of the gun lobby.”
So while this ruling might be a symbolic victory for states like Illinois and Wisconsin with stricter gun regulations, it likely will do little to curb debate in Oregon.
“We will continue to have all the same battles that we’ve always had,” Starrett said. “I don’t see this ruling as changing that.”
