Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional?

In the wake of recent shootings, lawmakers throughout the country have renewed their attempts to tackle the recurring issue of gun control.  In Rhode Island, two legislative proposals are currently sitting in “limbo.”  One bill would ban semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazine, while the other would require handgun permits to go through the attorney general’s office instead of local police.  Both proponents and opponents have been vocal; relying on moral, pragmatic and legal arguments. 

While most people know of the 2^nd Amendment’s right to bear arms, the tougher issue is finding out what that really means.  For we all know that the 1^st Amendment does not protect all speech, as one cannot yell bomb on an airplane or verbally threaten another person.

In the 2000’s the District of Columbia had a law on the books that made it illegal for people to keep guns in their homes for self defense.  A 2008 challenge to this law went all the way to the US Supreme Court.  The Court struck down the law as a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the 2^nd Amendment.  (See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570)

Following the Heller decision many states began trying to enact less restrictive gun regulations.   For example, New York enacted legislation which said that private persons needed to show “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.  This law was also challenged, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, finding that it was substantially related to the state’s interests in public safety and crime prevention.  (See Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81)

Similar restrictions have been met with mixed reactions in other states.  For instance, Illinois enacted a law that generally banned carrying a gun in public.  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found this to violate the 2^nd Amendment right to bear arms for self defense outside of the home.  (See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933)  Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a Maryland law similar to the New York law that required a showing of a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a handgun. (See Wollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865)

Although it appears unlikely that the proposed laws here in Rhode island would violate the US Supreme Court’s holding in Heller, that is not certain as one can see how split the various Circuits are over the true scope of the 2^nd Amendment.  However, what is clear is that although the 2^nd Amendment’s protections are not absolute, any attempt at increased restriction will likely be met with a legal challenge.