Supreme Court rules on challenge to the Second Amendment

In the final decision of the Supreme Court of the United States this session, the Supreme Court position on gun control has been clarified. To a point, the ban on ownership of handguns has been struck down. For the most part, McDonald v. Chicago clarifies the 2008 decision striking down a Washington D.C. law.

Source for this article: Supreme Court Rules on gun control in Second Amendment case by Personal Money Store

The Supreme Court gun decision

Within the last 3 years, the Supreme Court has rendered two decisions on the constitutionality of gun bans. Handguns cannot be restricted on ownership, as outlined by the decision rendered in McDonald v. Chicago. Handgun ownership can’t be banned in federal districts, as outlined by the 2008 Supreme Court ruling. States and cities are subject to the exact same ruling, according to the latest decision. The 5-4 majority ruling stated that that “self-defense is a basic right… individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment.”

Some legislation can nevertheless be constitutional

Legislation that limits the ownership of handguns could still, under some situations, be considered constitutional. The majority opinion restates the 2008 caveat that “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 no matter what purpose.” Gun ownership can be limited, but only under certain situations. Where exactly that right butts up against the Second Amendment is nevertheless to be determined.

The other things the court ruled on today

On the last day of Justice John Paul Stevens’ 34-year service on the court, the Supreme Court rendered decisions on more than just guns. The SCOTUS declared that the Public Company Accounting Board is unconstitutional in its current incarnation. The failure of Enron and WorldCon spurred the creation of this board in 2002. If the SEC gets more control over the board, though, it will be constitutional. Strategies for limiting risk cannot be patented, according to the decision in Bilski v. Kappos.