The Second Amendment

In 2008 and again in 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one. Both in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, the court struck down ordinances that limited an individual's liberty to possess firearms within a residence.

You might think that would end the matter. Not being an attorney myself, I think I'm really not qualified to examine all the ramifications of the decisions, but I do know there's always another aspect to a decision that must be decided, even after what appears to be a definitive resolution of a controversy.

Here are some legal decisions made by inferior courts since the two landmark cases mentioned earlier were decided. I might just say here that the court was sharply divided in these decisions, justices going so far as to make very critical comments about one another in their written opinions.

My source here is the Wikipedia article on the amendment.

Since Heller, the federal courts have ruled on many Second Amendment challenges to convictions and gun control laws.^[151][152] The following are post-Heller cases, divided by Circuit, along with summary notes:

First Circuit

• United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) - On August 31, 2009, the First Circuit affirmed the conviction of a juvenile for the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 5032, rejecting the defendant's argument that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights under Heller. The court cited "the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns" and observed "the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms — those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public."^[153]

Second Circuit

• Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2009) - On January 28, 2009, the Second Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. Also, New York was ruled to have a "rational basis" for banning possession of nunchaku.^[154][155] On June 29, 2010, under the name Maloney v. Rice, the Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded this case in light of McDonald v. Chicago.^[156]

Third Circuit

• United States v. Lewis (3d Cir. 2008) - On July 3, 2008, the Third Circuit upheld, against a Second Amendment challenge, a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms with obliterated serial numbers.^[157]
• United States v. Walters (3d Cir. 2008) - On July 15, 2008, the Third Circuit upheld, against a Second Amendment challenge, a federal law that prohibits possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school zone and so denied a request to dismiss an indictment of Rupert Walters.^[158]

Fourth Circuit

• United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2009) - On August 4, 2008, the Fourth Circuit upheld as constitutional the prohibition of possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.^[159]

• United States v. Chester, (4th Cir. 2010) - On December 30, 2010, the Fourth Circuit vacated William Chester's conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).^[160] The court found that the district court erred in perfunctorily relying on Heller's exception for "presumptively lawful" gun regulations made in accordance with "longstanding prohibitions".^[161]

Fifth Circuit

• United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) - On June 30, 2008, the Fifth Circuit upheld 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l), which bans weapons on postal property, sustaining restrictions on guns outside the home, specifically in private vehicles parked in employee parking lots of government facilities, despite Second Amendment claims that were dismissed. The employee's Second Amendment rights were not infringed since the employee could have instead parked across the street in a public parking lot, instead of on government property.^[162][163]

• United States v. Bledsoe, 334 Fed. Appx. 771 (5th Cir. 2009) - The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of a U.S. District Court decision in Texas, upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits "straw purchases." A "straw purchase" occurs when someone eligible to purchase a firearm buys one for an ineligible person. Additionally, the court rejected the request for a strict scrutiny standard of review.^[159]

• United States v. Scroggins, 551 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2010) - On March 4, 2010, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Ernie Scroggins for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court noted that it had, prior to Heller, identified the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, and had already, likewise, determined that restrictions on felon ownership of firearms did not violate this right. Moreover, it observed that Heller did not affect the longstanding prohibition of firearm possession by felons.

Sixth Circuit

• Hamblen v. United States, 2009 FED App. 439P (6th Cir. 2009) - The Sixth Circuit affirmed a denial of the petitioner's motion to vacate convictions for possession of machine guns and possession of unregistered firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1) and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), respectively. The court observed that Heller explicitly excluded from Second Amendment protection any weapons "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the federal restrictions were nevertheless unconstitutional, stating that, "whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use."

Seventh Circuit

• United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2009) - Steven Skoien, a Wisconsin man, convicted of two misdemeanor domestic violence convictions appealed his conviction based on the argument that the prohibition violated the individual rights to bear arms, as described in Heller. After initial favorable rulings in lower court based on a standard of intermediate scrutiny,^[164] on July 13, 2010, the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled 10-1 against Skoien and reinstated his conviction for a gun violation citing the strong relation between the law in question and the government objective.^[164] Skoien was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison for the gun violation and likely will be subject to a lifetime ban on gun ownership.^[165][166] Pro-gun editorials have sharply criticized this ruling as going too far with the enactment of a lifetime gun ban^[167] while editorials favoring gun regulations have praised the ruling as "a bucket of cold water thrown on the 'gun rights' celebration".^[168]

Eighth Circuit

• United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008) - On September 23, 2008, the Eighth Circuit upheld 26 U.S.C. § 5841 which prohibits the receiving or possession of an unregistered firearm.^[159]

Ninth Circuit

• United States v. Heredia-Mendoza (9th Cir. 2008) - On November 18, 2008, the Ninth Circuit upheld 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) which mandates stricter sentencing for use of a firearm during crimes of violence or drug trafficking. The court rejected the defendant's claim of unconstitutionality because the law criminalized possession of gun for self defense in the home.^[159]

• Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009) - On July 29, 2009, the Ninth Circuit decided to vacate both parts of an April 20 ruling in this case and to rehear this case en banc on September 24, 2009.^{[169][170][171][172]} That April 20 decision, by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, had ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to state and local governments, while also upholding anAlameda County, California ordinance which makes it a crime to bring, or possess, a gun or ammunition onto county property.^[173][174] After the en banc panel heard oral argument, the Ninth Circuit decided to delay ruling on the case until the Supreme Court decides if it will review any of three cases it has been asked to hear.^[175]

Tenth Circuit

• United States v. Artez, 290 Fed. Appx. 203 (10th Cir. 2008) - On August 29, 2008, the Tenth Circuit upheld the federal ban on possession of un-registered sawed-off shotguns.^[151]

Eleventh Circuit

• United States v. Boffil-Rivera (11th Cir. 2008) - On August 12, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled the prohibition of possession of firearms by persons illegally or unlawfully in the United States, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), to be constitutional. The court stated that "Heller casts no shadow on the statute on a facial challenge".^[151] The Eleventh Circuit later affirmed the jury's verdict.^[176]