Attention to detail may be lacking

The anti-gun people are celebrating yesterdays Supreme Court decision:

Gun control advocates hailed the ruling as a good sign following the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 decision that defined the Second Amendment as covering an individual’s right to possess weapons. That decision was the first time the Court had ever ruled so broadly on gun rights.

But the Heller ruling suggested that some reasonable restrictions to gun ownership would be allowed. “That’s a good sign that Heller is the limited ruling we thought it was,” said Daniel Vice, a senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

They may be overlooking something. The Second Amendment was neither briefed or mentioned in the case. Hence, if my understanding of judicial process is correct, the court could not bring the Second Amendment or the Heller decision into the discussion. Thus, if someone else challenges the Lautenberg Amendment on Second Amendment grounds we could end up with a completely different decision.

Go ahead and dance Mr. Vice, your day to whine may be coming yet.


One thought on “Attention to detail may be lacking

  1. You are absolutely correct ,and the statement in the linked story that the ruling “upheld” the Lautenberg Amendment is absolutely false. All the court ruled on was the meaning of the Lautenberg Amendment, not its constitutionality. Constitutionality was not at issue, so there was nothing for the court to “uphold” except the appellate court’s ruling, which it reversed.

Comments are closed.