Posts Tagged ‘2nd Amendment’

WHAT HAPPENED? Illinois state law generally prohibits individuals from carrying firearms in public.  Several individuals who sought to carry firearms in public filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the Illinois law violates the Second Amendment in Moore v. Madigan.

HOW SAFETY WINS
The Illinois judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that there is no Second Amendment right to possess a firearm outside of the home.  The court said that the Illinois law helps promote public safety and does not prohibit a responsible, law-abiding citizen from possessing a firearm in his or her home for self-defense.  This decision is particularly important because Illinois has the strongest laws in the country regulating the carrying of firearms in public.

WHAT HAPPENED?
In an appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court, a convicted felon argued that the Nevada law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms violated the Second Amendment in Pohlabel v. Nevada.

HOW SAFETY WINS
The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state law.  It explained that convicted felons do not have Second Amendment rights, and therefore, that laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms do not violate the Second Amendment.  This decision is particularly significant for its strong language confirming that felons are entirely excluded from the Second Amendment’s protection.

WHAT HAPPENED?
Under Texas law, an individual must be 21-years-old in order to obtain a permit to legally carry a concealed handgun outside of the home.  Several individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 who wanted to carry concealed weapons in Texas filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the age restriction violated the Second Amendment in Jennings v. McCraw.

HOW SAFETY WINS
A judge in Texas upheld the challenged law.  He found that the Second Amendment is limited to allowing an individual to keep a firearm at home for the purpose of self-defense, and therefore, that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to carry a firearm outside of the home, regardless of one’s age.  Thus, the judge did not need to consider the appropriateness of the age restriction.  The ruling is particularly significant for its strong, definitive language finding that the Second Amendment does not extend outside of the home.

WHAT HAPPENED?
While a majority of states require an individual to meet only minimal requirements to acquire a license to carry a loaded, concealed firearm in public, California and New Jersey both require an individual to show a justifiable need to acquire such a license. Individuals in both states who were denied licenses argued that these requirements violated the Second Amendment in Piszczatoski v. Filko and Birdt v. Beck.

HOW SAFETY WINS
The federal courts in New Jersey and California found these state laws constitutional, concluding that the use of standards in limiting who may carry concealed handguns helps protect law enforcement officers and members of the public from the dangers posed by guns in public places. As these cases and others have repeatedly shown, the Second Amendment is consistent with a wide variety of sensible gun laws that help protect public safety.

WHAT HAPPENED?
A law student at the University of Idaho challenged a provision in his housing agreement that prohibited him from possessing a firearm in his campus housing unit.  He sued the University and the State Board of Education arguing that the prohibition violated his right to bear arms under the Idaho and U.S. constitutions in Tribble v. State Bd. Of Educ.

HOW SAFETY WINS
A state court judge in Idaho ruled that the housing provision did not violate the law student’s right to bear arms.  The judge stated that the University’s “important interest of ensuring that the University campus remains a safe educational and learning environment” outweighed the student’s interest in having a gun. This decision is particularly significant in light of the gun lobby’s recent push to introduce bills around the country that would restrict universities from prohibiting guns on their campuses.

WHAT HAPPENED?
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (striking down the District’s decades-old ban on handgun possession and storage requirement), a flood of litigants have attempted to expand the limited right to self-defense in the home provided by the Heller Court.  After the District of Columbia repealed the laws struck down in Heller, the District, with help from LCPGV, enacted a set of firearms laws that are among the strongest in the nation.  The lead Heller plaintiff immediately challenged the laws.
HOW SAFETY WINS
The Circuit Court upheld important firearms and ammunition safety laws.  In October 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court held that D.C.’s assault weapon ban, large capacity ammunition magazine ban, and handgun registration requirement are consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller v. District of Columbia, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130. For more information about the nationwide trend rejecting expansion of the basic right to a handgun in the home for self-defense, see LCPGV’s latest Post-Heller Litigation Summary.

The legislature of Oklahoma wasted state resources on a bill creating a frivolous new annual holiday to be known as “Second Amendment Day” commemorating the Supreme Court’s decision that individuals have the right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.  The Oklahoma governor signed the bill into law on April 14th.