EckerNet.Com

A little over a month ago, I wrote how the US Supreme Court was considering three different cases that would again address the Second Amendment, this time on the issue of incorporation.  Today we get word that SCOTUS has officially agreed to hear one of those cases, McDonald v. Chicago (Docket # 08-1521).

Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county, and city government laws.

The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue — two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon.  It chose one of the Chicago cases — McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA., lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller).

In this case, SCOTUS will finally solve the question of whether incorporation applies to the Second Amendment, like it does for every other right listed in the Bill of Rights.  This would mean that the same restrictions placed upon the federal government by DC vs Heller, would also apply against state and local governments.

So what\’s the likely outcome?  While nothing is certain, it seems increasingly likely that SCOTUS will rule that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.  All the other rights have been explicitly incorporated already, so there is little reason that the Second Amendment should be either.  Sotomayor\’s addition to the court shouldn\’t present much of a change.  She replaced Souter who already would have voted against incorporation.

Already the Brady campaign is openly accepting that the Second Amendment is likely to be incorporated.  Instead, the contention seems to be falling along the same lines as Heller did.  Both sides are conceding the fundamental question and are instead debating the details, basically what consists of reasonable regulations.

Essentially this case will take the two extremes of the debate out of the equation.  Outright bans and unrestricted ownership/possession will be out.  Even Scalia in Heller noted that while outright bans were certainly unlawful, reasonable regulation had to be allowed.  That same standard will likely apply.  It will come down to the question of what regulation is reasonable.  Essentially what is the Second Amendment equivalent of shouting \”Fire!\” in a crowded theatre.