But the court has never accepted the argument that the entire Bill of Rights was incorporated en masse, preferring a case-by-case (right-by-right) approach.
10 In 1868, however, the 14th Amendment was ratified, explicitly forbidding states to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 11 As a result, the Supreme Court began to decide that most of the Bill of Rights guarantees were included in-or “incorporated” into-the more general language of the 14th Amendment as a limit on state (not just federal) powers. Even the familiar protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights-such as the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion clauses-initially affected only the powers of the federal government, not the state governments. The first involves something lawyers call the “incorporation doctrine.” When the Constitution was first ratified, most of its provisions specified the extent and limits of federal government authority. Two primary legal reasons explained this virtual unanimity. In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.
We also discuss the implications for researchers, policymakers, and the courts.Īccording to the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 9 Prior to the Heller decision, there was little disagreement among the courts about this language's meaning.
We briefly review the history of how the Supreme Court and lower federal courts initially interpreted the Second Amendment and examine how the Heller and McDonald decisions have changed that interpretation. 4 Evaluations of a number of these laws indicate public health and safety benefits for other laws, the effects remain controversial. 3 Laws at the federal, state, and local levels seek to address this public health burden. During that same period, more than 530 000 additional nonfatal firearm injuries were treated in hospital emergency departments. Nevertheless, the McDonald decision also leaves critical issues undecided, issues that lower courts must now address and that may affect the risk of firearm violence for millions of Americans.įirearms were associated with more than 240 000 deaths from 2000 to 2007, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths. In McDonald v City of Chicago 2 (decided June 28, 2010), the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment does indeed apply to laws enacted by state and local governments. In its decision, the court struck down a 1976 District of Columbia law that outlawed most handgun ownership.īut the Heller decision left several important questions unanswered, particularly whether the Second Amendment affects state or local firearm laws or only limits the power of the federal government. In District of Columbia v Heller 1 (decided June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court concluded for the first time that the Constitution grants individuals a personal right to possess handguns in their home for protection.
HAVING GONE ALMOST 70 years without deciding a case directly addressing the US Constitution's Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms,” beginning in 2008 the US Supreme Court decided 2 such cases with important implications for the public's health.