Misplaced Pages

Gun law in the United States: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:04, 22 October 2015 edit108.31.49.188 (talk) →Second Amendment: DC has failed to abide by the second amendment← Previous edit Revision as of 00:18, 23 October 2015 edit undo108.31.49.188 (talk) →Second Amendment: Judges sentiments are irrelevant. Dc officials have ignored the rulingNext edit →
Line 24: Line 24:
In the United States the individual ] is protected by the ]. There has been vigorous debate on the nature of this right. Two relatively recent ] cases codify the federal and local individual right to possess a firearm. In the United States the individual ] is protected by the ]. There has been vigorous debate on the nature of this right. Two relatively recent ] cases codify the federal and local individual right to possess a firearm.


An individual right to own a gun for personal use was "affirmed"<ref>{{cite web|last1=Miller|first1=Emily|title=D.C. businessman faces two years in jail for unregistered ammunition, brass casing|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/23/miller-dc-businessman-faces-two-years-jail-unregis/?page=all|website=washingtontimes.com|publisher=The Washington Times|accessdate=10/22/2015}}</ref> in the landmark '']'' decision in 2008, which overturned a handgun ban in the Federal District of Columbia. In the ''Heller'' decision, the court ruled that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."<ref name=Scalia-Heller2008/> Further, this ruling held in the court's majority opinion that the Second Amendment protects "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."<ref name=NYTimesHeller>Greenhouse, Linda (June 27, 2008). , '']''. Retrieved February 15, 2015.</ref> An individual right to own a gun for personal use was affirmed in the landmark '']'' decision in 2008, which overturned a handgun ban in the Federal District of Columbia. In the ''Heller'' decision, the court ruled that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."<ref name=Scalia-Heller2008/> Further, this ruling held in the court's majority opinion that the Second Amendment protects "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."<ref name=NYTimesHeller>Greenhouse, Linda (June 27, 2008). , '']''. Retrieved February 15, 2015.</ref>


In spite of of this ruling the local DC governments require residents interested in firearms to Complete MPD’s Application for Firearms Registration Certificate in the presence of the seller, Take and pass a test on DC’s firearms laws and regulations, cerifify that they are not blind, Pay fees upwards of $150, be fingerprinted and photographed. Even then registrants may only retrieve the firearms they have purchased if their application is approved.<ref>{{cite web|title=Firearm Registration: Complete Registration Procedures|url=http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/firearm-registration-complete-registration-procedures|website=dc.gov|publisher=dc.gov|accessdate=10/22/2015}}</ref> Dc law also outlaws the ownership of black powder (early gun powder in use during the revolutionary war) as it is considered ammunition<ref>{{cite web|title=D.C. Code § 7-2501.01 (2015)|url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/dccode/|website=lexisnexis.com|publisher=lexisnexis|accessdate=10/22/2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Replica bullets, dud shell earn weapons conviction for former Washington man|url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/28/former-dc-resident-found-guilty-for-violating-city-gun-laws-for-owning-fake/|website=foxnews.com|publisher=fox news|accessdate=10/22/2015}}</ref>
In delivering the majority opinion, Justice ] wrote:
{{quote|There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms....


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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.<ref name=Scalia-Heller2008>{{cite journal |last=Scalia |first=Antonin |date=June 26, 2008 |title=District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008 |url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf |page=2 |accessdate=February 25, 2013}}</ref><ref name=Cooper130119>{{cite journal |last=Cooper |first=Matthew |date=January 19, 2013 |title=Why Liberals Should Thank Justice Scalia for Gun Control: His Ruling in a Key Supreme Court Case Leans on Original Intent and Will Let Obama Push His Proposals |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119 |journal=National Journal |publisher=National Journal Group |accessdate=October 9, 2015 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20130120041246/http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119 |archive-date=January 20, 2013}}</ref>}} Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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.<ref name=Scalia-Heller2008>{{cite journal |last=Scalia |first=Antonin |date=June 26, 2008 |title=District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008 |url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf |page=2 |accessdate=February 25, 2013}}</ref><ref name=Cooper130119>{{cite journal |last=Cooper |first=Matthew |date=January 19, 2013 |title=Why Liberals Should Thank Justice Scalia for Gun Control: His Ruling in a Key Supreme Court Case Leans on Original Intent and Will Let Obama Push His Proposals |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119 |journal=National Journal |publisher=National Journal Group |accessdate=October 9, 2015 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20130120041246/http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119 |archive-date=January 20, 2013}}</ref>}}

The four dissenting justices said that the majority had broken established precedent on the Second Amendment,<ref name="Greenhouse">{{cite news |author = Linda Greenhouse |authorlink = Linda Greenhouse |title = Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&adxnnlx=1214566644-y9NRsbBuErVCPyegbU0ryg |publisher = '']'' |date = 2008-06-27 |accessdate = 2008-06-27 }}</ref> and took the position that the Amendment refers to an individual right, but in the context of militia service.<ref name=HLR>See (comment), '']'', Vol. 122, pp. 141-142 (2008): "Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, agreeing with the majority that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, but disagreeing as to the scope of that right….Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined Justice Stevens’s opinion."</ref><ref name=Bhagwat>{{cite book | last = Bhagwat | first = A. | title = The Myth of Rights: The Purposes and Limits of Constitutional Rights | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = New York | year = 2010 | isbn = 9780195377781 | pages = 16–17
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=ic5MAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA16 |quote= Justice Stevens begins his opinion by conceding Justice Scalia's point that the Second Amendment right is an 'individual' one, in the sense that 'urely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.' He concludes, however, that all of the historical context, and all of the evidence surrounding the drafting of the Second Amendment, supports the view that the Second Amendment protects only a right to keep and bear arms in the context of militia service.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1 = Bennett | first1 = R. | last2 = Solum | first2 = L. | title = Constitutional originalism : A Debate | publisher = Cornell University Press | location = Ithaca, N.Y | year = 2011 | isbn = 9780801447938 | page = 29
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=NbtNyt16mw0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA29 |quote= In both dissents, the clear implication is that if the purpose of the Second Amendment is militia—related, it follows that the amendment does not create a legal rule that protects an individual right to possess and carry fire arms outside the context of service in a state militia.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Schultz | first = D. A. | title = Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution | publisher = Infobase Publishing | location = New York | year = 2009 | isbn = 9781438126777 | page = 201
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=f7m713xwK58C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA201 |quote= Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the debate over the Second Amendment was not whether it protected an individual or collective right but, instead, over the scope of the right to bear arms.}}</ref>


In the '']'' decision in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that, because of the ], the guarantee of an individual right to bear arms extends to state and local gun control laws and not just federal laws.<ref name=NYTimesMcDonald>Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). , '']''. Retrieved February 15, 2015.</ref> In the '']'' decision in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that, because of the ], the guarantee of an individual right to bear arms extends to state and local gun control laws and not just federal laws.<ref name=NYTimesMcDonald>Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). , '']''. Retrieved February 15, 2015.</ref>

Revision as of 00:18, 23 October 2015

This article is about federal gun laws. For state and local gun laws, see Gun laws in the United States by state.
Firearm legal topics of the
United States
flag United States portal

Gun law in the United States is defined by a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Major federal gun laws

Most federal gun laws were enacted through one or more of these acts:

Manufacturers

Under U.S. law, any company or gunsmith which in the course of its business manufactures guns or gun parts, or modifies guns for resale, must be licensed as a manufacturer of firearms.

Second Amendment

In the United States the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. There has been vigorous debate on the nature of this right. Two relatively recent United States Supreme Court cases codify the federal and local individual right to possess a firearm.

An individual right to own a gun for personal use was affirmed in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, which overturned a handgun ban in the Federal District of Columbia. In the Heller decision, the court ruled that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Further, this ruling held in the court's majority opinion that the Second Amendment protects "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

In spite of of this ruling the local DC governments require residents interested in firearms to Complete MPD’s Application for Firearms Registration Certificate in the presence of the seller, Take and pass a test on DC’s firearms laws and regulations, cerifify that they are not blind, Pay fees upwards of $150, be fingerprinted and photographed. Even then registrants may only retrieve the firearms they have purchased if their application is approved. Dc law also outlaws the ownership of black powder (early gun powder in use during the revolutionary war) as it is considered ammunition

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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.}}

In the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that, because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, the guarantee of an individual right to bear arms extends to state and local gun control laws and not just federal laws.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether or not the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns in public for self-defense, turning down a case concerning a New York State law that requires people seeking permits for carrying guns in public to demonstrate that they have a special need for self-protection. Federal appeals courts have issued conflicting rulings on this point. For example, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2012 that it does, saying, "The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." But the Tenth Circuit Court ruled in 2013 that it does not, saying, "In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizen's freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections."

See also

References

  1. "Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline". Infoplease.com. Retrieved 2013-11-14.
  2. "Crime Control: The Federal Response". Policyalmanac.org. Retrieved 2013-11-14.
  3. "Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Manufacturers". ATF.gov. 2015. Archived from the original on July 10, 2014. Retrieved February 24, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Scalia, Antonin (June 26, 2008). "District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008" (PDF): 2. Retrieved February 25, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  5. Greenhouse, Linda (June 27, 2008). "Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights", The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2015.
  6. "Firearm Registration: Complete Registration Procedures". dc.gov. dc.gov. Retrieved 10/22/2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. "D.C. Code § 7-2501.01 (2015)". lexisnexis.com. lexisnexis. Retrieved 10/22/2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  8. "Replica bullets, dud shell earn weapons conviction for former Washington man". foxnews.com. fox news. Retrieved 10/22/2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  9. Cooper, Matthew (January 19, 2013). "Why Liberals Should Thank Justice Scalia for Gun Control: His Ruling in a Key Supreme Court Case Leans on Original Intent and Will Let Obama Push His Proposals". National Journal. National Journal Group. Archived from the original on January 20, 2013. Retrieved October 9, 2015.
  10. Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling", The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2015.
  11. Liptak, Adam (April 15, 2013). "Justices Refuse Case on Gun Law in New York", The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2015.
  12. Long, Ray; Sweeney, Annie; Garcia, Monique (December 11, 2012). "Concealed Carry: Court Strikes Down Illinois' Ban", Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 15, 2015.
  13. Associated Press (February 23, 2013). "Court Finds No Right to Conceal a Firearm", The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2015.

External links

Categories:
Gun law in the United States: Difference between revisions Add topic