Supreme Court’s Impact on Gun Control: A Closer Examination
Gun control advocates face significant challenges when the Supreme Court reviews cases related to firearm regulations, particularly this term with two pivotal cases from Illinois and Connecticut. These cases, set for oral argument in December, center on whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments offer protection for the possession of AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles.
Historically, gun rights groups have reason for optimism, as the Supreme Court has consistently supported gun rights since District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. In Heller, the court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects individual firearm possession.
The subsequent case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, further extended these rights by establishing that firearm ownership restrictions are typically unconstitutional according to the Second Amendment’s plain text. This decision dismissed the traditional approach of balancing governmental interests against individual rights, replacing it with the “history and tradition” test. This test maintains that gun regulations are only valid if they align with historical firearm regulations.
This test poses a significant barrier to regulating modern weapons that far exceed historical firearms’ capabilities. Without a comparable historical restriction predating the 20th century, even gun laws that address vital governmental interests become invalid.
The Supreme Court’s approach contradicts the primary goals of gun control, emphasizing historical precedents over present-day needs for legislation.
Recent Gun Legislation and Impact
Currently, two laws are under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny. Post-Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14, 2012, Connecticut legislation prohibited the sale, transfer, or possession of specific semiautomatic rifles. Highland Park, Illinois, witnessed a deadly shooting on July 4, 2022, prompting Cook County to reaffirm its 2006 ordinance against assault-style weapons, now involved in Supreme Court litigation.
The list of locations witnessing tragic mass shootings includes Uvalde, Aurora, Parkland, and others, influencing legislative efforts to manage firearm access. Despite these incidents, the gun rights lobby supports strict adherence to Bruen’s interpretation, eliminating judicial evaluation of firearms restrictions’ pros and cons.
Potential for Change
Yet, there remains hope for gun control. In the case of U.S. v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court showed flexibility, relaxing the “history and tradition” criteria to prevent firearms access by domestic abusers. Such a precedent indicates possible sensible outcomes in assault weapon cases.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh has suggested a similar approach for exceptions to constitutional rights, considering evolving circumstances and unforeseen developments since ratification, as demonstrated in his opinion on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara. While originally addressing immigration and air travel, Kavanaugh’s rationale also applies to today’s semiautomatic weapon proliferation affecting public safety.
Therefore, if circumstances such as air travel impact constitutional interpretations under the 14th Amendment, they may equally inform firearm restrictions under the Second Amendment.
Professor Steven Lubet from Northwestern University advocates that gun regulation should not be isolated with unique standards, supporting the possibility of sensible firearm legislation reflective of current public safety challenges.