Click here to read the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Sally Slovenski (617) 923-6490, sally@freedomstatesalliance.org
Scott Vogel (312) 474-1339, scott@freedomstatesalliance.org
Despite FSA’s Strong Disagreement With the Conservative Majority’s Ruling, the Supreme Court’s Decision Does Not Prohibit Effective Measures From Being Enacted, Such As Universal Background Checks On All Gun Purchases
(June 26th, 2008, Chicago) The Freedom States Alliance strongly disagrees with the gun lobby’s belief, now shared by the Supreme Court, that the Second Amendment grants an “individual right” to keep and bear arms. However, even this misguided interpretation of the Second Amendment does not, in anyway, prohibit life-saving and crime-reducing policies from being enacted. Those necessary measures include: requiring background checks on all gun purchases; limiting handgun purchases to one per month; requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement officials; cracking down on illegal guns and gun trafficking; and regulating military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber sniper rifles.
In a reversal of longstanding precedent, the Supreme Court suddenly and dramatically reinterpreted the Second Amendment to strike down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban in a landmark case, District of Columbia v. Heller. Today’s ruling is the first time in over 200 years that the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment to allow an individual right to keep and bear arms, versus a collective rights interpretation. The Court’s ruling will have no immediate impact beyond the District of Columbia, but the decision is expected to set off a wave of litigation within the justice system and a likely springboard for the gun lobby to challenge other gun violence prevention laws.
On a positive note, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, acknowledged that reasonable regulations can be imposed on the carrying and sale of guns, and implicitly acknowledged that gun control laws can be imposed. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…[It is not a] right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. …[The Court’s] opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or 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,” (p. 54-55).
“Despite our strong disappointment with the Court’s ruling favoring an individual right to bear arms, there is no doubt that sensible gun control measures can, and should, be enacted to save lives from gun violence,” said Sally Slovenski, Executive Director of the Freedom States Alliance. “The decision today will, in effect, put more lives at risk from gun violence and will make it more difficult for mayors and law enforcement officials across the country to do their job to keep our communities safe. The reality is that effective and common sense gun laws are necessary for saving lives from the deadly impact of the nearly 300 million guns in civilian hands in our country.”
Gun violence prevention advocates stated that no right is beyond reasonable regulations. “This decision by the Supreme Court should, in no way, be interpreted as an excuse for not taking action to prevent gun violence, and in fact, reinforces the right to implement reasonable regulations. It’s time for policymakers to utilize all the means at their disposal, including regulations, effective enforcement, public education, and non-legislative measures to reduce gun violence in America.” said Scott Vogel, Communications Director of FSA.
Advocates stated unequivocally that the Court’s ruling will reinvigorate their work to save lives from gun violence. “We believe today’s ruling favoring the individual right’s interpretation was an extreme and unfounded position, put forth by a conservative court. We look forward to the day when the Supreme Court is more balanced and has an opportunity to take a second look at this issue and perhaps even overturn this potentially life endangering decision,” said Slovenski.
