Whatever one thinks is the obvious meaning of "shall not infringe," this case is a big risk. I would have thought that the first amendment was clear with "shall pass no law," but the court interpreted this as "Congress shall pass no law unless it has a good reason." The case is likely to be closely decided.
Probably one reason why the court took an extra week to announce that they were taking the case was because they were rewriting the question before the court:
Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
The Scotusblog has a useful discussion of the case.
Probably one reason why the court took an extra week to announce that they were taking the case was because they were rewriting the question before the court:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
The Scotusblog has a useful discussion of the case.
Supreme Court Grants Cert for DC Gun Ban Case
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
