The Limits of the Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court decision Monday on the McDonald v Chicago case held that the Second Amendment right, as determined in the controversial 2008 decision in D.C. v Heller, for individuals to keep and bear arms for self defense extends to the states and not just to the Federal Government. Because Washington, D.C. is a federal district, Heller did not resolve the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. Now, with the McDonald decision, the Court has fully applied the incorporation clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to this Second Amendment right, meaning that the right to bear arms applies not only to the Federal Government but to the states as well. The ruling remands Chicago's handgun ban back to the 7th Circuit Court for further review. There is little doubt that the city's handgun ban will be struck down as a result of the Court's decision.

The ruling has led to a great deal of discussion as to what other state and local gun laws might be overturned. The answer is not many. In the McDonald decision, the Court emphasized that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to possess any firearm for any purpose. In delivering the Court's opinion, Justice Alito stated:

"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose….We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." We repeat these assurances here."

Because Connecticut's gun laws are reasonable and derived from a common sense approach to gun violence prevention, and because our state constitution already specifically allows for individual ownership of guns for self defense, we do not expect any of Connecticut's gun laws to be overturned. Our laws have resulted in Connecticut having the 4th lowest rate of gun deaths per 100,000 in the nation, according to a Violence Policy Center report based on information from the Center for Disease Control. Connecticut has a gun death rate of 4.23 per 100,000 as opposed to the national average of 10.34 per 100, 000.

It is our opinion at Connecticut Against Gun Violence that the Court's opinion clearly allows for a host of reasonable gun violence prevention measures including regulating military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, requiring registration of firearms, requiring background checks on all gun sales, establishing waiting periods, restricting the open carrying of loaded guns in public, and allowing tools that aid law enforcement in solving gun crimes such as the new "microstamping" technology that would allow law enforcement to identify the gun used in a crime without actually being in possession of the gun. Furthermore, we are confident that should the gun lobby litigate and challenge these policies, the courts will ultimately uphold the constitutionality of our gun laws.

It is our belief that state and local legislators know best what is required to protect the safety of our communities, our families, and our children.